News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!

Friday, December 25, 2015

A BLESSED AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

Merry Christmas to all and thank you for your patience. I'm also behind in reading comments. I had several rough days with the "cold" or whatever it was last weekend and beyond. I'm still coughing up part of it. We plan a quiet Christmas with Church, family and close friends. Clearly our world is in a real mess. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus! This day reminds us all of the Hope we have!

8:40 and September 11, was His real Birthday. That means 9-11-01 could symbolize the year He was born. I expect 2033 to a banner Agenda 21 year. I can only imagine what they have planned. I suppose any link lie this could shine some light on that.

To 1:42 am -- Sleepless in Michigan -- Sad because I need sleep BUT awoke too early. I will be doing radio program at 10 am Eastern time, and 7 am Pacific time. WWW.TMERadio.com and/or themicroeffect.com. Thanks for introducing me to the Jeremy James materials. I'm reading them with interest as I pull them down from the ScribD website.

Mr. James claims that his current statement of faith is embodied in the works of fellow anti-Catholic H.A. Ironside.

Mr. James' main website is here:

http://www.zephaniah.eu/

At this link, you can click onto the "biographical note" and read about Jeremy James for yourself.

Many of his articles are also included.

I especially like the one dated December 24, 2015 [ The Blackest Black:The International Space Station (so called)is Distorting Reality by Jeremy James ] where he interprets statements made by astronaut Major Tim Peake as implying that the International Space Station does not exist, that we never actually put a man on the moon, and that the space program is a satanic deception. He reaches his crescendo with the following pronunciamento:

This is why there are no cameras on the moon, beaming back to mankind highdefinition video of the earth in real time as it revolves on its axis. Since they neverlanded on the moon, there are no cameras there to reveal anything. Equally, even if itdid exist, the ISS would not have had any cameras because they would show that theearth is not a sphere and that it is not revolving on its axis. Rather, as the largestobject in creation, the earth is exactly as the Bible stated – completely stationary.

Thanks, Susanna. I have a great deal of respect for your opinions and research. I worked closely with Dave Hunt between 1982 and 1987 when I broke completely with him in October of that year for many compelling reasons. Later, it was brought to my attention that Dave Hunt had a publishing relationship with Norman Grubb. Dave Hunt was vigorously pushing the works of William Law. William Law was Jacob Boehme's translator from German to English. Boehme was the inspiration for the very name of the Theosophical Society. Dave told me he had never met Norman Grubb. Clearly he had. Norman Grubb published Dave's first two books, including the one Dave claimed to have finished for William Law, POWER OF THE SPIRIT, and then Dave's autobiography, CONFESSIONS OF A HERETIC. William Law's painting, THE ILLUMINATION OF JACOB BOEHME appears in the Manly Palmer Hall book (The Secret Teachings of All Ages) as a glossy plate in the edition in my library.

I've just started reading Jeremy James, but I'm glad for your heads up as I'm now justifiably cautious about where Dave Hunt was really coming from.

As you have seen from my past posts, I have no problem when it comes to dropping the hammer on Roman Catholic apostates. Neither do I have any problem disagreeing with the Pope when he ventures outside of his legitimate sphere of responsibility.

If you read my post on the previous thread in which I quoted the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, you will understand that while there could be an ANTIPOPE who might very well be affiliated with Agenda 21, the true Pope of the Roman Catholic Church could never be the antichrist because insofar as he is the TRUE POPE, he will pass the test of the antichrist by acknowledging the humanity and UNIQUE divinity of Jesus Christ. I would even go so far as to say that if someone calling himself "the pope" were to deny the divinity of Christ, I would not acknowledge him as pope!!!

As for Dave Hunt, there was a time when I thought he knew what he was talking about until his writings degenerated to the bottom-feeding level where groundless irrational rants of people like Alexander Hyslop, Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, et al prevailed.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem if someone honestly disagrees with Catholic beliefs and practices. What I have a problem with is when someone cannot base said disagreements on sound logical arguments and instead resorts to false accusations that are short on facts and long on innuendo.

Instead of the simple message of the cross we are now encumbered once again with The Law (cannon)(I am not referring to scripture).

I believe it came when men of reason, down through the ages until today, have used mental reasoning and philosophy to shape Christianity. Some examples:

The shaping of Trinitarian Doctrine, in pagan terms.For Christ to be sinless Mary necessarily need to be immaculate.The doctrine of original sin placed on the innocent of which child baptism was then initiated.Tradition for tradition's sake, can it not be cleansed and purged?The Lock on this Trap I see as the recent belief of Papal Infallibility.

The most understanding I have, is that if the Roman Church were to try to fix any one point of cannon or tradition, all would unravel.

…James Sire Sr., the Senior Editor of InterVarsity Publishing Company. Sire on March 20, 1983, threatened me with a character assassination at the hands of powerful Christian leaders, should I not back off the New Age Movement issues. I told him “Jim, I don’t care if nobody but God stands with me on this issue.” He said so sneeringly that I will never forget it until my dying day, “God may be all you have left.”

I said, “Well, Jim, would you like another handicap?”

After InterVarsity could no longer sweep the issue under the rug, they came out with their own version of “facts” on the New age Movement.

They published reconstructionist, Rushdoonyite Douglas Groothuis book, Unmasking the New Age. I found even the title an insult and I am sure it was intended to do just that. InterVarsity was founded by Norman Grubb, who has openly declared his fondness for the “great mystics” including Russian theosophist P. D. Ouspensky, a leading Gurdjieff disciple. The InterVarsity work dismissed my pioneering work in this area with one snippy paragraph in the back saying that I had erroneously equated the New Age Movement with fulfillment of biblical “prophesy” (the correct spelling would have be “prophecy”) and erroneously equated the New age Movement with Nazism and erroneously said the New Agers were following Alice Bailey. No substantiation whatsoever was offered for these remarks! The book was thereafter pushed as “the book” about the New Age Movement. In fact there was a rather obvious effort to write me out of the history books on the story of the exposure of the New Age Movement. Most of the books about the subject did not even mention me, although their use of my research was rather obvious. I understand from some sources that this occurred because their publishers in turn told them they could not mention me.

Oh well, I never thought it would be a picnic! It wasn’t. ~ Constance Cumbey

You have seen my comments in which I spoke of the pagan gnostic Traditionalist School which I have frequently referred to as the "right wing" of the New Age Movement, and which, like the "left wing" of the New Age Movement, embraces the Perennalist philosophy. ( a.k.a. the syncretistic and estoeric "transcendental unity of all religions" even if "all religions" happen to contradict each other exoterically.)

According to Mark Sedgwick (whose book you said you recently purchased), Russian Traditionalism started with Gurdjieff!!! One of Putin's radical sidekicks, Alexander Dugin, encountered Traditionalism through an offshoot of what had originally been a Gurdjieff group!!!

The following article is from Mark Sedgwick's blog for the study of Traditionalism and the Traditionalists:

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Russian Traditionalism started with Gurdjieffhttp://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/russian-traditionalism-started-with.html_____________________________________________________________________

Your association of the New Age Movement with Nazism was spot on.

Because while Marilyn Ferguson has been prominently associated with the "Age of Aquarius," she was not the first to coin the term.

The term "Age of Aquarius" is said to have appeared in the writings of Traditionalist Paul Le Cour who in turn was relying on the work of openly gay English astrologer/author Edward Carpenter.

Paul Le Cour [1871 - 1954 AD] published in 1937 a work entitled Ere du Verseau. Avènement de Ganyméde, which translates as the Age of Aquarius, the Advent of Ganymede.* Le Cour's start date for Age of Aquarius was 2160 AD.

This appears to be the first book ever written concerning the Age of Aquarius. However, Le Cour remains essentially unknown in the English-speaking world. This may be for two reasons. Firstly, the French-language Ere du Verseau. Avènement de Ganyméde seems never to have been translated into English. Secondly, Le Cour was thought by many to be an antisemite. This would not have endeared him to Carl Gustav Jung, the subsequent populariser of the Age of Aquarius, and Jung never refers to Le Cour in his writings. However, Ere du Verseau predates Jung's first recorded mention of the Age of Aquarius by some three years.

* Ganymede in the original Ancient Greek tale was immortalised by Zeus as the constellation Aquarius. He was cupbearer to the Gods, taken up to heaven on account of his transcendent beauty. [He was also Zeus's lover.]

*****************************************

Le Cour's Age of Aquarius: Le Cour's earlier Age of Aquarius differs from Jung's in one very notable aspect. Whereas Jung saw the start of the Age of Aquarius as the end of the Christian "Era of the Fishes," Le Cour saw it in the opposite fashion, as a Second Advent of Jesus, albeit perhaps Christianity without its original Jewish roots.

A part of the charge of antisemitism against Le Cour lies in the difference between the first and second editions of Ere du Verseau. The first edition contains a chapter on Jewish and Christain accord, in which Le Cour writes "One of the great events of the Era of Aquarius must be logically the reconciliation of the Jews and the Christians." And that a "Temple of Solomon" would be restored. This chapter is removed from the second edition. However, it must be born in mind that the second edition was published in the early 1940s when France was under Nazi occupation.

C.G. Jung, who was a gnostic later became one of the main popularisers of the concept of the Age of Aquarius.

As for Paul Le Cour, it was Le Cour who became head of the Hieron du Val d'Or after death of its founder Baron Alexis Sarachaga who, together with the Jesuit Victor Drevon, became the founder of the Hiéron du Val d'Or, a Roman Catholic esoteric political cabal that sought to prepare the political landscape in Europe for the second coming and reign of Christ. They also founded the Musée du Hiéron. Sarachaga claimed to be of Spanish/Russian ethnicity and was most likely an advocate of the Traditionalist School.

It was partly through the Hieron du Val d'Or that the pagan/gnostic Traditionalist School sought to infiltrate Roman Catholicism in France. Had it not been for the post Vatican II excommunication of the Catholic Traditionalists for schism ( i.e. SSPX founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who illicitly ordained priests and bishops ), the pagan Traditionalist School might very well have been far more successful in promoting its agenda. Recall that the late Carrie Tomko exposed Rama Coomarawamy ( son of Ananda ) for embracing Traditionalism and its Perennal philosophy while claiming to be a Roman Catholic - and even seeking an illicit ordination as priest and consecration as a bishop.

By the way, a Masonic "reconciliation" with the church was one of the goals of the Hiéron du Val d'Or

Rene Guenon, who was a Freemason and had functioned as a "bishop" in the Gnostic Church founded by fellow Freemason Jules Doinel was directly involved with the Hieron du Val d'Or and wrote for its literary arm known as "Regnabit" until he ran afoul of Catholic teaching.

Re:The shaping of Trinitarian Doctrine, in pagan terms.For Christ to be sinless Mary necessarily need to be immaculate.The doctrine of original sin placed on the innocent of which child baptism was then initiated.Tradition for tradition's sake, can it not be cleansed and purged?The Lock on this Trap I see as the recent belief of Papal Infallibility.

Here is what I have been taught as a Catholic. I am stating it here because you don't seem to clearly understand what Catholics believe.

The word "Trinity" is simply a shorthand for "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." If you want to use "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" instead of the word "Trinity" fine, but the way I learned it "Trinity" with a capital "T" refers to the biblical trinity as revealed by Christ. Hardly a "pagan" interpretation.

Christ's sinlessness did not in any way depend on Mary's sinlessness. It was Mary's sinlessness that depended on the fact that Christ is truly God as well as truly man. God Who is almighty and not subject to time PREREDEEMED Mary on the future merits of Christ's work of redemption because He deemed it fitting that the Mother of the Word made flesh should be sinless.

Ergo the Magnificat in which a grateful Mary says "the Lord has done great things for me and holy is HIS NAME!!!" Luke 1:49

Ergo, the angelic salutation "Hail full of grace." From the time of the Fall, no human being had ever been so greeted by an angel.

Just as Eve was immaculate when she gave into the serpent's temptation, so Mary was immaculate when she uttered her "fiat" to the Archangel Gabriel.

Original Sin is not a positive sin. It is the privation of a good ( i.e.Sanctifying Grace, etc. ) which Adam had before he sinned and which he would have passed along to his posterity had he not lost it after he had fallen.

I agree that there are "traditions" made by men and there is "SACRED TRADITION." What Catholics call "Sacred Tradition" is the revelation of Jesus Christ directly to Peter and the Apostles. Especially Peter to whom the Father directly and prsonally revealed that Jesus is "the Christ the Son of the Living God." ( a.k.a. Jesus is God as well as man ) This is the ESSENTIAL dogma preserved and handed on by the Popes along with the eyewitness account of Christ's Passion Death and Resurrection.

I am not going to get into the papal infallibility argument again here. If you don't agree with it, fine. Stick to your Bible. But as far as I am concerned, it is the concrete historical apostolic succession whose visible sign of unity is Peter and his successors that prevented Christianity from degenerating into a myth - especially given the bizarre errors of the gnostic heretics beginning with Simon Magus who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

Susanna also stated: “Don't get me wrong. I have no problem if someone honestly disagrees with Catholic beliefs and practices. What I have a problem with is when someone cannot base said disagreements on sound logical arguments and instead resorts to false accusations that are short on facts and long on innuendo.”

Among my fairly extensive library are the books “The Two Babylons” by Rev. Alexander Hislop (First Edition 1916) and “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner (First Printing 1962). Susanna refers to both of these authors’ works as “bottom-feeding” “groundless irrational rants.” I have read both of these books and find her assertion to be totally “groundless” and “irrational.” BOTH books have extensive research and documentation to support their findings. For example, Boettner quotes extensively from official Roman Catholic publications in order to state EXACTLY what the RCC doctrine and dogma is. He then compares those positions to what the Word of God clearly states, and by doing so, proves that the RCC system is NOT based on the Bible, but rather on the “doctrines of men.”

Roman Catholics hate Boettner because his book proves (for those that have “eyes to hear, and eyes to see”) the conflict that clearly exists between Roman Catholicism and God’s Word. When reading the Bible and comparing its teachings with RCC doctrine and dogma, a person is confronted with one of two choices; either cling to “thus saith the Lord” or, reject Him and His Word and cling to the “doctrines of men.”

What is often missed (seemingly quite often in this forum) is the fact that one can CLAIM to believe in Jesus Christ and yet, deny Him by rejecting His Word (read John 8:30-59). For the true Christian, God’s Word is to be feared, and by God’s grace, believed ON and OBEYED. Anything less may be some form of “religion” but it is not Biblical Christianity. If you are willing to truly follow Christ, He will show you the truth. Jesus said: “If ye will do my will, ye shall know of my doctrine.” Conversely, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” John 3:19

I have studied RCC theology & dogma for years and can say with complete confidence that Roman Catholicism is not based on God’s Word. It is a sacramental system (administered only via the “church”) in which the faithful must remain in obedience to that system, or be in danger of losing their eternal soul. While denying the finished work of Christ on the cross, the (false) promise of the torment of Purgatory awaits even the most “faithful” Catholic. It is a system of works, and not one based upon Christ’s finished work, and God’s gift of “faith” and “grace.” Ultimately, RCC does NOT teach the Christ of the Bible, but rather, a “christ” of its own invention. Either believe and obey the true Jesus Christ as presented in His Word, or, reject Him for the false Christ of RCC that continues to be “sacrificed” in the blasphemous “mass.” It is your choice.

The scholarship in Hislop's Two Babylons is debunked by another protestant, Ralph Woodrow, who initially believed Hislop but grew dubious the more he tried to confirm the claims in Hislop's book. Woodrow eventually wrote a short book, "The Babylon Connection?", debunking Hislop and in an appendix setting out his own objections to Roman Catholicism.

I suspect that your own position will not be able to withstand Woodrow's critique. If you don't read it then you will will be easy prey for Catholics who are familiar with it.

I am very familiar with Woodrow's work and reject it. How anyone can be dedicated enough to his "work" to the point of writing a book and then turn around and write another book to debunk his first "work" is beyond me. When I ponder that I can't help but think of the Scripture "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." I suspect that that verse applies to Mr. Woodrow.

It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many an unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire!

With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially Charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She needs us to think!

I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!

Part 1. The Holy Eucharist - Eating the Flesh of Deity.One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

The EucharistThe word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving." In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer," although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist."Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. If you've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends - at the bread and the wine!

TransubstantiationThat 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement . . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up, it was such a natural and normal part of religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.

Exclusive AuthorityFor example, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that since their priests are the only ones who have the authority from God (2) to pronounce the blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus "physically resides" even now! Let me quote a letter written to one of the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the ONLY church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist - He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host in Holy Communion."If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really believe or teach this, I beg you to read on. For not only is this the official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree (called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

The Council of TrentWhen Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered together her theologians who worked for three decades on the preparation of a statement of faith concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine.As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:CANON I - "If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure - let him be accursed!"CANON II - "If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ - let him be accursed!"CANON VI - "If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, not to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolators, - let him be accursed!"

The Worship Of The Host"Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image (4)...Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" The Second Commandment (Ex.20:4-5)"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23)In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is not just an "ancient custom," it is thoroughly practiced today in many Masses. After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into the Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder called a monstrance. And before this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called genuflecting) the little wafer as God! Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship - to this piece of bread!The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems. For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ?" Do they change back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh! And don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript in a museum case somewhere - it still is completely adhered to and passionately practiced. As an example, here is a passage from an official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore, some hosts are usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of `making visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks, their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness: in a word, to make Him the center around which they live their daily lives."That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of your daily life!

When Did This Teaching Begin?The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

How Rome Views the BibleBefore we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the Scriptures. According to unquestionable decree, they hold that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible." This is not just a theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same Council of Trent in 1546! And again, this view is completely held by the Church today:"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture...and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:" "...usually, the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." (10)Anyone can see how such a mode of interpretation can be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the Scriptures - each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the Bible!

Catholic Proof-Texts ExplainedWith this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus Himself taught transubstantiation.John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage (verses 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but spiritual food and drink.Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger." Now, Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation, And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever - therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28; Jn. 4:31-34.)We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14.) No one can say that Jesus was here establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body...this is My blood." (See also Matt. 4:4.)Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these tow verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood. The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread - His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have figurative language. Jesus did not say TOUTO GIGNETAI ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but TOUTO ESTI ("this is," i.e., "signifies," "represents" or "stands for"). (11) It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood."One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (2 Sam. 23:17)Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door," "the Vine," "the Light," "the Root," "the Rock," "the Bright and Morning Star," as well as "the Bread." The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)

rue Pagan OriginsWhere did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." (12) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (13) In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. (14) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites. (15)The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." (16)

So Why Do They Teach It?Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked, "Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine - why do they think that Jesus wants them to physically eat Him?" That is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is a sad one. As I said before, the implications and practical conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially worse than the doctrine itself - and like a great web spun by an industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel.In Catholic Chronicle II we will look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass."

Footnotes:1] - Today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.2] - Passed down through "Apostolic Succession" from Peter the apostle-the supposed "first pope."3] - The "wafer."4] - NASB reads, "You shall not make for yourself an idol."5] - This act is called "genuflecting."6] - "The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course. Book #3, p.92.7] - A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.8] - The Other Side of Rome, p.21.9] - By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.10] - "The Spirit of Jesus," pp.94-95.11] - If I held up a picture of my son and said, "This is my son," I am certainly not saying that the actual picture is literally my son.12] - The Story of Civilization, p.741. 13] - Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill. 14] - An ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.76.15] - Ibid. 16] - Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.The Sacrafice of the Mass - What Does it Mean?In Chronicle I, we thoroughly examined the doctrine of transubstantiation - its history, practice, and real meaning. But we have waited for this second article to answer the question: WHY? Why must there be present in the Mass the literal body and blood of Jesus? What purpose does it serve?The answer is found in the startling words: "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." (1)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV...."I profess likewise that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory (2) sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)That is the incredible truth! The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead (3) as well!) Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. NOT A SYMBOLIC RE-CREATION - but a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago. (4)That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." (5)"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will NEVER CEASE." (6)"The Mass is identical to Calvary - it is a sacrifice for sin - it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (7)The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST." (8) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a RENEWAL of the sacrifice of the cross." (9)

The Council Of Trent On "The Sacrifice Of The Mass"As we shared in Chronicle I, the Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:1. "If anyone shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (10)2. "If anyone shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."3. "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead fro sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."4. "If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass - let him be accursed."

But Is This The Belief Of Rome Today?If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-1965) Second Vatican Council:"At the Last Supper...our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross..." p. 154, THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. (11) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host," which is the Latin word HOSTIA which literally means "VICTIM." (12)

But Why "The Sacrifice" Of The Mass?We will now quote the church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (13) Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE PERPETUATION OF THAT SACRIFICE THAT THIS UNION MAY BE MAINTAINED."What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the Cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (14)

But Jesus Said "It Is Finished!"Every true believer loves the sound of these words: "It is finished!" (John 19:30). For it is the wonderful exclamation that the Lord's suffering was finally over - He had fulfilled His mission! Jesus had lived a Life of Sorrow, bearing the burden of a world gone mad. He had been rejected by everyone, even His closest friends. He had lived a perfect life before men and God, and His reward on earth was to be laughed at, spat upon, beaten beyond recognition, and finally nailed to a cross. But He had submitted willingly, because it was the will of His Father to offer Him as the satisfaction of the penalty for all the sin in the world - past, present and future!But here, in the words of a Roman Catholic priest, is the "true meaning" of the words "it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law." (15) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever "perpetually"dying for sin.Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic story - Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only look to the Scriptures to see the truth.

Back To The BookThe epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the "once for all" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth explicitly in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10:"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: For this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27). "...by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (9:12). "Nor yet that He should offer Himself often..but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself..so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (9:25-28). "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for the sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God...for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (10:10-14).Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement "once for all" which shows how perfect, complete and final Jesus' sacrifice was! His work on the cross constituted one historic event which need never be repeated and which in fact cannot be repeated. As Paul say, "Christ, being raised from the dead dieth no more" (Romans 6:9). Any pretense of a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, it is blasphemy and true fulfillment of the Scripture, "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." (Heb. 6:6).

Jesus - The Only PriestJesus not only became the perfect sacrifice for sin, but after being accepted by God as having totally fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant, He became "the mediator of a better covenant" (Heb.8:6). That means that Jesus is the high priest of every true believer! "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ" (ITim.2:5).The Bible teaches that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is unique: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (17) "...because He abides forever (He) holds His priesthood permanently" This means that it cannot be transferred to another! (Heb.7:17,24).But Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles were ordained by Jesus Himself (at the Last Supper) to perpetuate the coming sacrifice He would make on the cross. And that this ordination has been handed down through the centuries to the current generation of priests. Therefore, Rome teaches that her priests actually operate and discharge the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and that they are called "other Christs" (alter Christus). (16)This explains the great adulation and honor heaped upon the Roman priest. The French Catholic Saint J.M.B. Vianney said that "Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is no religion...without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us... see the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater feat than the creation of a world." He also said, "If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before saluting the angel. The angel is a friend of God, but the priest holds the place of God...nest to God Himself, the priest is everything!" What humiliation for Jesus Christ, the One who has been given a name "above all other names!"

But Isn't Rome Changing?Today, many are expressing hope that Rome is turning toward scriptural Christianity. They point to the many reforms of Vatican II (17) and also to the ever-widening charismatic renewal. True, these things appear to be a positive sign of change, and many are thrilled by them, but most fail to realize that these changes are only superficial. For Rome could never reject the sacrifice of the Mass - just streamline it enough to keep the truth of its meaning hidden. Pope John XXIII made it clear that His Church is bound "to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the act of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council..." (18)It is clear that the whole of Roman teaching and belief is founded on this premise of the continual sacrifice of Christ for sin: Again, Catholic writings declare:"It should be easy to see why the Mass holds such an important place in the Church's life. The Mass is the very essence of the Church. Within it the Church's life, and the Church's very existence is centered. If there were no Mass, there could be no Catholic Church. The Mass is our act of worship, an act which we know to be really worthy of God, because it is the sacrifice of God's own Son."What the sacrifices of the old law were unable to accomplish - the Mass performs: Perfect atonement is made for sin."The souls of men yet unborn, together with those now living and those who have come into existence since Christ's sacrifice, all have need of the salvation which Christ has won for us. It is through the Mass as well as through the other sacraments that the effects of Christ's salvation are applied to the souls of men." (19)It is made thoroughly clear that Rome will forever put its faith in the Mass for the eternal forgiveness of sins. To remove this belief from her system of theology, would be like knocking our the pillars of a great edifice - the whole building would come tumbling down!

Paul's Extreme WarningAs I sat stunned, reading all the "Let them be accursed" threats of the Council of Trent, I could not help but think how their curses would only fall back on their own heads - for the words of our brother Paul call out across the centuries:"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).Not only does Paul warn that an authentic angel from heaven should not be heeded while preaching "different doctrine," but he gives the ultimate warning -"...even though we!" Paul strictly warned the Galatians, not even to listen to him - the chief apostle and master of true doctrine - if he should reverse himself on any of the fundamental teachings of the gospel. How much more then, should we reject the appalling traditions and practices of a system that is not only unbiblical, but is actually steeped in mysticism, bordering dangerously on the occult!

ConclusionAs far as I can see from the Bible, a person is only in danger of being grouped with "false brethren" by tampering with three very basic issues of biblical truth. (20)1) Who Jesus is - Son of God, God the Son, Creator of the universe.2) What He came to do - to die once for all, for the sins of mankind, then raise from the dead as the eternal high priest of all true believers.3) How a person directly benefits from Christ's death for sin - he is accounted as righteous through a total faith and rest in the finished work of Christ, and becomes the possessor of God's free gift - eternal life (salvation).The Roman Catholic Church has been considered a true Christian faith, mainly because it is generally known that their theology is quite orthodox on point #1. But as we have pointed out in these two chronicles, they are perilously shaky on the atonement - Christ's substitutionary death for sinners - #2. But if there is any doubt left at all, as to whether or not the Roman Church is authentically and biblically Christian, there is a complete and thorough study of the Roman view on how one obtains salvation in our third installment of The Catholic Chronicles - "Salvation According To Rome."

Footnotes:1] The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.2] Propitiatory - conciliatory, to soothe the anger of, to win or regain the goodwill of, to appease, placate or make friendly, to reconcile - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.3] "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb.9:27).4] The Catholic Home Instruction Book #3, p.90.5] the Spirit of Jesus pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph CardinalCarberry, Archbishop of St.Louis.6] Sons of God in Christ Book 4, p.117.7] For Them Also, pp.289-299.8] Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.77.9] "A Catholic Word List" p.45.10] Anathema - The strongest denunciaiton of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death." A thing or person accursed or damned - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.11] "The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.12] Webster's New World Dictionary.13] Imprimatur - Sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.14] pp.20-2415] The Sacrifice of Christ by Richard W.Grace.16] In Latin.17] i.e., Such as Masses performed in the common language rather than exclusively in Latin, the relaxation of taboos such as eating meat on Friday, etc.18] The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot,S.J.20] This Is The Catholic Church pp.24-25.21] These are greatly condensed for this example.Part 3. Salvation According to Rome."...the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord!"- Rom. 6:23How blessed it is to know Jesus! His love, His mercy, His righteousness, His forgiveness! He has promised to "cast all our sins into the depths of the sea" (Mic. 7:19) and to separate us from our sins "as far as the east is from the west!" (Ps. 103:12).This is the good news! (That's the literal meaning of the word "gospel" - good news!) That is what the true church of our God has the privilege of proclaiming..."liberty to the captives!!" (Lk. 4:18).

The reason I begin this article on the Roman Catholic view of salvation with such rejoicing in my Saviour, is because I have just finished reading a mountain of official (Roman) church literature on the subject, and I can honestly say, I have never had such joy in my heart of hearts about the finished work of Christ. As I scoured each page and read of penance, confession, venial and mortal sins, indulgences, purgatory, etc., I then had the infinite pleasure of searching the Scriptures to see what they had to say on these fundamental Catholic doctrines.Oh what relief my soul found in the Scriptures! What holy joy! What clarity of light I saw, as the simple brilliance of God's mercy shown into my mind. If there is anything more beautiful than God's love and patience with man, it has never been revealed to mortals!All this to say that I am bogged down with the information I have accumulated, and I will probably have to cover it all in this, Chronicle III, briefly touching on each subject, while always coming back to the main question: "According to Rome, how can a man or woman be saved from the consequences of his sinful nature and actions, and how can they gain assurance that they are in a right standing before God?"

The Catholic Teaching On SinBefore we can understand what Catholics are taught about salvation, we must first see what they are taught they need to be saved from. In Matt. 1, the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream about his bethrothed, Mary, saying "she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (vs. 21).Today, many evangelicals toss around the term "saved" without much thought. "When did you get saved?" someone might ask. It's almost like a title, or a badge that a person wears to prove that he's become part of the club - the "saved" club. Others are under the impression that when a person talks of being "saved", they are talking about being saved from many different things - sickness, death, the devil, hell, etc. But when the angel of the Lord used that precious word to prophesy that Jesus would fulfill all the predictions of the prophets, he made very clear what Jesus was coming to save His people from...their sins!In official Roman Catholic theology, this too is the main thing that people are taught they need to be saved from - their sins. But the only thing that Catholic and evangelical teachings have in common on the subject of sin...is the spelling! For when a Catholic talks about his "sins", you must find out first if he is talking about "mortal" sins, or "venial" sins. And then you must ask him "how do you get rid of them?" The answer given will likely confound a non-Catholic. For words like "faith", "repentance", even "Jesus" will usually be missing in the answer. Instead, a whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined, and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be canceled out.

Mortal and Venial SinsThe first of these unfamiliar words are the names of the two groups Rome has separated all sins into. Now if you're a Catholic, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal - for the dividing of sins into two distinct categories (each with their own set of consequences and remedies) has been part of Catholic doctrine for a long, long time.According to Rome's definition, mortal sin is described as "any great offense against the law of God" and is so named because "it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment." Venial (1) sins, on the other hand, are "small and pardonable offenses against God, and our neighbor." Unlike mortal sins, benial sins are not thought to damn a soul to hell, but with the committing of each venial sin, a person increase his need for a longer stay in the purifying fires of a place called "purgatory." (Look that word up in your Bible dictionary - you'll find it right next to "venial"!)Now, there is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial, but they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. The method of classification is purely arbitrary. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another.According to Rome, the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. He should then be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloging those sins which are mortal as distinguished from those which are venial. However, there are some definites in the "mortal" category: blatantly breaking one of the ten commandments, practically all sexual offenses (whether in word, thought or deed) and a long list of transgressions which have changed throughout the centuries.For instance, until Vatican II it was a mortal sin to attend a Protestant church, to own or read a Protestant Bible, or to eat meat on Friday! Oh, and it's still a mortal sin to "miss Mass on Sunday morning (2) without a good excuse" (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal sin!) Venial sins include things like thinking bad thoughts, having wrong motives, losing your temper, etc. - things that do not necessarily "lead into actual sin" but still, nevertheless, are sins that need to be eradicated in some way.

What Does the Bible Say?The Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! It is true that some sin are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). And Ezekial says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (18:4).James says that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for, shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canyon below.We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying "these sins are really bad! But those? Well...you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much." Speaking of "getting away" with something, let's get right down to how Rome teaches you can "get rid of" your sins.

ConfessionThe Catholic system starts to get real complicated when we begin to look at the ways one can erase both their mortal and venial sins. "Two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal (in hell forever), and temporal (in purgatory). Eternal punishment is canceled by either baptism (3) or confession to a priest." (4)The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as follows: "Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of attaining forgiveness." The important words here are "authorized priest." And to be genuine, a confession must be heard, judged, and followed by obedience to the authorized priest as he assigns a penance, such as good works, prayers, fastings, abstinence form certain pleasures, et. A penance may be defined as "a punishment undergone in token of repentance for sin, as assigned by the priest" - usually a very light penalty.The New York Catechism says, "I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution. (5) A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession."

The Priest's RoleCanon law 888 says: "The priest has to remember that in hearing confession he is a judge." And the book, Instructions for Non-Catholics (6) says: "A priest does not have to ask God to forgive your sins. The priest himself has the power to do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself." (7)The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins which save the penitent form going to hell, but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins, and so the penitent must atone for them by performance of good works which he prescribes. The penitent may be, and usually is, interrogated by the priest so that he or she may make a full and proper confession. Stress is placed on the fact that any sin not confessed is not forgiven, any mortal sin not confessed in detail is not forgiven, and that the omission of even one sin (mortal) may invalidate the whole confession. Every loyal Roman Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to go to confession at least once a year, although monthly confession is said to be more satisfactory. But even after a penitent has received pardon, a large, but unknown amount of punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory." (8) The doctrine of purgatory rests on the assumption that, while God forgives sin, His justice nevertheless demands that the sinner must suffer the full punishment due to him for his sin before he will be allowed to enter heaven.Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be canceled by good works, prayers, extreme unction. (9) etc., but the terms are quite elastic and permit considerable leeway on the part of the priest. It is generally advised that it is safer to confess supposed venial sins also since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism says: "When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution. (10) What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?As an example, a minister friend of mine who was brought up in the Catholic Church, tells the story of how his older brother went to confession every single week and confessed the same sin to the same priest and was given the same penance in order to receive absolution. This went on week after week, year after year. One day, while on a trip from home, he decided that he would not break his pattern of going to weekly confession, so he went to another Catholic Church in the city he was visiting. He went into the confession box and confessed the same sin to a different priest. He began with "forgive me Father for I have sinned," and then began confessing the sin once again, but this time he was shocked when the priest said: "But my son, that's not a sin!" My friend's brother got up, and hurried out the door, and from that day on he has never stepped foot in any church again.

Historical DevelopmentWe search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of "auricular confession." (11) It is equally impossible to find any authorization or general practice of it during the first 1000 years of the Christian era. Not a word is found in the writings of the early church fathers about confessing sins to a priest or to anyone except God alone. Auricular confession is not mentioned once in the writings of Augustine, Origen, Nestorius, Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostem, or Athanasius - all of these and many others apparently lived and died without ever thinking of going to confession. No one other than God was thought to be worthy to hear confessions or to grant forgiveness.Confession was first introduced into the church on a voluntary basis in the fifth century by the authority of Leo the Great. But it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Pope Innocent III that private auricular confession was make compulsory and all Roman Catholic people were required to confess and to seek absolution from a priest at least once a year. If they did not obey this command, they were pronounced guilty of mortal sin and damned for eternity to hell. (12)

Can A Priest Forgive Sins?The Scriptures teach that "only God can forgive sins" (Mark 2:7). "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6). Dr. Zachello tells of his experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman Church, in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness." (13)In fact, the only word in the Bible about confessing sins to anyone other than God, is found in James: "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (5:16).

RE: I have studied RCC theology & dogma for years and can say with complete confidence that Roman Catholicism is not based on God’s Word.

There is no way that you are going to convince me that you have studied Roman Catholic theology and dogma. It appears to me that the only "Roman Catholic theology and dogma" you have studied are the rants of professional anti-Catholic crank "scholars" like Hislop, Boettner, Chiniquy and Jack Chick. If wou really want to know what Roman Catholics believe, study the Catechism of the Catholic Church which you can read for free online. At least I can say I have actually read Hislop's book.......before I even knew about Woodrow.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCHhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM_______________________________________________________________

Re: Among my fairly extensive library are the books “The Two Babylons” by Rev. Alexander Hislop (First Edition 1916) and “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner (First Printing 1962). Susanna refers to both of these authors’ works as “bottom-feeding” “groundless irrational rants.” I have read both of these books and find her assertion to be totally “groundless” and “irrational.” BOTH books have extensive research and documentation to support their findings. For example, Boettner quotes extensively from official Roman Catholic publications in order to state EXACTLY what the RCC doctrine and dogma is. He then compares those positions to what the Word of God clearly states, and by doing so, proves that the RCC system is NOT based on the Bible, but rather on the “doctrines of men.”

Roman Catholics hate Boettner because his book proves (for those that have “eyes to hear, and eyes to see”) the conflict that clearly exists between Roman Catholicism and God’s Word.

If Roman Catholics do not hate Boettner, it is becaused they are too busy laughing at some of his more priceless rants against the Catholic Church.

Re:Boettner quotes extensively from official Roman Catholic publications in order to state EXACTLY what the RCC doctrine and dogma is.

Actually, he does not. One glaring example of this is with regard to the infallibility of the pope.

Boettner quotes at length from a speech alleged to have been given in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, where papal infallibility was formally defined. The speech, attributed to "the scholarly archbishop [sic, bishop] Strossmeyer," claims that the "archbishop" read the New Testament for the first time shortly before he gave the speech and found no mention at all of the papacy. The speech then concludes that Peter was given no greater authority than the other apostles. The trouble is that the speech is a well-known forgery. Bishop Strossmeyer did not make that speech, and, in fact, when it was being circulated by a disgruntled former Catholic, the bishop repeatedly and publicly denied that it was his and demanded a retraction by the guilty party. A glance at the Catholic Encyclopedia or a work like Newman Eberhardt’s A Summary of Catholic History would have clued in Boettner.

As for the sincerity issue, the reason why Boettner's and Hislop's sincerity is suspect is because both Boettner's magnum opus entitled CATHOLICISM and Hislop's THE TWO BABYLONS (which I have read) suffer from an inexcusable lack of scholarly discipline which appears to be more a matter of malice than it does ignorance. For example, Boettner uncritically accepts at face value just about any bizarre claim made by an opponent of the Roman Catholic Church. Even when it would be easy for him to verify a charge, he doesn't even bother to take the trouble to check it out. As long as it is unflattering to Catholicism, that is good enough for Boettner who prints it forthwith.

One of the more hilarious Boettner gems which demonstrates his aforementioned lack of scholarship is as follows:

When he writes about the definition of papal infallibility, Boettner says that a pope speaks infallibly only "when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in the papal chair." He then points out that what is venerated as Peter’s chair in St. Peter’s Basilica may be only a thousand years old, implying that since Peter’s actual chair is not present, there is no place for the pope to sit, and thus, by the Church’s own principles, the pope cannot make any infallible pronouncements.

Boettner entirely misunderstands the meaning of the Latin term ex cathedra. It does translate as "from the chair," but it does not mean that the pope has to be sitting in the literal chair Peter owned for his decree to be infallible and to qualify as an ex cathedra pronouncement. To speak "from the chair of Peter" is what the pope does when he speaks with the fullness of his authority as the successor of Peter. It is a metaphor that refers to the pope’s authority to teach, not to where he sits when he teaches.

Given the fact that a similar metaphor which is part of the American lexicon is frequently used in reference to judges when they are described as ruling "from the bench" with the "bench" being a metaphor that refers to judicial authority, one would think that Boettner would have been easily able to connect his metaphorical dots.

In the "who hates what" dept. is my belief that certain Protestants are the ones who hate Roman Catholicism because it shines the light on the fact that Sola Scriptura contradicts itself insofar as the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.

Moreover, if you are trhying to convince people that "Sola Scriptura" is your rule of faith, then where do you get off citing extra-biblical sources like Hislop, Boettner et al as if THEY were on a par with Holy Writ?

Re:I am very familiar with Woodrow's work and reject it. How anyone can be dedicated enough to his "work" to the point of writing a book and then turn around and write another book to debunk his first "work" is beyond me.

Apparently, Woodrow was unwilling to a;;pw his anti-Catholic zeal outrun his scruples. At the following link Woodrow explains it all for you.

Re: Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits.

It certainly does matter what Woodrow thinks of Hislop's book - especially given the fact that Woodrow has been able to show that Hislop's book is swarming with falsehoods. But even in the absence of Woodrow's expose, Hislop's book certainly does speak for itself......albeit perhaps not in the way that Hislop would have wanted.

By the way, here is Hislop's book online for anyone interested to read and decide for himself whether or not Hislop is a "reputable scholar." The title alone offers a significant clue as to the rest of the content of Hislop's book whose thesis has to this very day also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist/white supremacist/neo-Nazi groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord and other conspiracy theorists.

The Two Babylons, subtitled The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife

We are commanded as Christians to have nothing to do with the fruitless works of darkness but rather expose them. (Ephesians 5:11).

We are to preach in and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2).All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Yahweh) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)

In Ezekiel 33 we Christians are commanded:

1 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:

3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

And with that said, I remind you of Revelation 18:4 :

And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues !

RE: I have studied RCC theology & dogma for years and can say with complete confidence that Roman Catholicism is not based on God’s Word.

"There is no way that you are going to convince me that you have studied Roman Catholic theology and dogma. It appears to me that the only "Roman Catholic theology and dogma" you have studied are the rants of professional anti-Catholic crank "scholars" like Hislop, Boettner, Chiniquy and Jack Chick."

Susanna,

Fair enough ... I can't "convince" you that I've studied RCC doctrine & dogma. So, instead of trying to "convince" you that I have, how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?

For example, please provide the "convincing" Scriptural proof for the following:

The office of the priest in the New Testament.

The doctrine of celibacy.

The Sacrifice of the Mass.

Mary's Immaculate Conception.

Mary's Assumption (both body & soul) into heaven.

Mary sitting on the Throne of God at the Right Hand of Christ.

Prayers being offered to Mary and to Dead Saints.

The Cup being withheld from the Laity.

The charge of money for the Mass.

The Confessional.

The Doctrine of Purgatory and the unfinished work on the cross by Christ.

The Doctrine of Indulgences.

Praying the Rosary.

Prayers for the Dead.

Collecting and venerating relics.

Papal Infallibility.

Scriptural proof that Peter was ever in Rome.

Susanna ...

I could go on, but I'll stop here. That should keep you busy. I am looking forward to reading your Scriptural proof for these doctrines & dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

Don't expect your challenge to be met honestly. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could find such RC claims in the Holy Scriptures because they are not there nor compatible with it!

A side-stepping, an attempt to muddy the waters and twist Holy Scripture or a complete refusal (voiced or silent) to address RC claims in the light of Holy Scripture will be your answer here: simply, to reiterate, because it cannot be done!

Such Romish doctrine is unbiblical and therefore nothing but the deceiving and enslaving doctrines of men!

Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?

Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).

Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software.

Question: "I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?"

Answer: First, please understand that we intend no offense in the wording of this question. We genuinely receive questions, from Catholics, along the lines of “What is the difference between Catholics and Christians?” In face-to-face conversations with Catholics, we have literally heard, “I am not a Christian, I am Catholic.” To many Catholics, the terms “Christian” and “Protestant” are synonymous. With all that said, the intent of this article is that Catholics would study what the Bible says about being a Christian and would perhaps consider that the Catholic faith is not the best representation of what the Bible describes. As a background, please read our article on “What is a Christian?”

A key distinction between Catholics and Christians is the view of the Bible. Catholics view the Bible as having equal authority with the Church and tradition. Christians view the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice. The question is, how does the Bible present itself? Second Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This text tells us that Scripture is not “just the beginning,” or “just the basics,” or the “foundation for a more complete church tradition.” On the contrary, Scripture is perfectly and fully sufficient for everything in the Christian life. Scripture can teach us, rebuke us, correct us, train us, and equip us. “Bible Christians” do not deny the value of church tradition. Rather, Christians uphold that for a church tradition to be valid, it must be based on the clear teaching of Scripture and must be in full agreement with Scripture. Catholic friend, study the Word of God for yourself. In God’s Word you will find God’s description of, and intention for, His Church. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

A second key difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is the understanding of how we can approach God. Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints. Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than God Himself. The Bible proclaims that we ourselves can approach God’s throne of grace with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The Bible is perfectly clear that God desires us to pray to Him, to have communication with Him, to ask Him for the things we need (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 7:7-8; 1 John 5:14-15). There is no need for mediators or intermediaries, as Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Catholic friend, God loves you intimately and has provided an open door to direct communication through Jesus.

The most crucial difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is on the issue of salvation. Catholics view salvation almost entirely as a process, while Christians view salvation as both a completed status and a process. Catholics see themselves as “being saved,” while Christians view themselves as “having been saved.” First Corinthians 1:2 says, “To those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy.” The words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same Greek root. This verse is declaring that Christians are both sanctified and called to be sanctified. The Bible presents salvation as a gift that is received the moment a person places faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16). When a person receives Christ as Savior, he/she is justified (declared righteous – Romans 5:9), redeemed (rescued from slavery to sin – 1 Peter 1:18), reconciled (achieving peace with God – Romans 5:1), sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes – 1 Corinthians 6:11), and born again as a new creation (1 Peter 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Each of these is fully accomplished at the moment of salvation. Christians are then called to live out practically (called to be holy) what is already true positionally (sanctified).

The Catholic viewpoint is that salvation is received by faith, but then must be “maintained” by good works and participation in the Sacraments. Bible Christians do not deny the importance of good works or that Christ calls us to observe the ordinances in remembrance of Him and in obedience to Him. The difference is that Christians view these things as the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation or a means of maintaining salvation. Salvation is an accomplished work, purchased by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2). God offers us salvation and assurance of salvation because Jesus’ sacrifice was fully, completely, and perfectly sufficient. If we receive God’s precious gift of salvation, we can know that we are saved. First John 5:13 declares, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

We can know that we have eternal life, and we can have assurance of our salvation because of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered or re-presented. Hebrews 7:27 says, “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself.” Hebrews 10:10 declares, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” First Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient. Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was the full payment for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). As a result, all of our sins are forgiven, and we are promised eternal life in heaven the moment we receive the gift God offers us – salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16).

Catholic friend, do you desire this “so great salvation” (Hebrews 2:6)? If so, all you must do is receive it (John 1:12) through faith (Romans 5:1). God loves us and offers us salvation as a gift (John 3:16). If we receive His grace, by faith, we have salvation as our eternal possession (Ephesians 2:8-9). Once saved, nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove us from His hand (John 10:28-29). If you desire this salvation, if you desire to have all your sins forgiven, if you desire to have assurance of salvation, if you desire direct access to the God who loves you – receive it, and it is yours. This is the salvation that Jesus died to provide and that God offers as a gift.

If you have received Jesus Christ as Savior, by faith, because of what you have read here today, please let us know by clicking on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below. Welcome to the family of God! Welcome, Catholic friend, to the Christian life!

Re: I could go on, but I'll stop here. That should keep you busy. I am looking forward to reading your Scriptural proof for these doctrines & dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, Sola Scriptura is YOUR rule of faith, not mine.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the two are inseperable, it is because Scripture is itself part of the Sacred Tradition insofar as the Word of God was orally revealed to the Apostles by Christ before it was handed down to us in the written form we now call the Bible.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true then you must be able to prove all doctrines - including Sola Scriptura - from Scripture alone. But you cannot.

So all the ranting and raving by you and Anonymous doesn't phase me one bit since I don't feel one bit obliged to "prove" my beliefs by your rule of faith. A rule which is itself unbiblical and self-contradictory since the Bible doesn't teach "Sola Scriptura."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is one passage often cited as a "proof text" for Sola Scriptura:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (Revised Standard Version).

The fact is that neither this passage (nor any other) even hints at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary — a rule of faith — but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. Besides, the Scriptures referred to in Timothy 3:16-17 are the Old Testament. None of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child.

The fact is that Sola Scriptura is a man made rule invented by Martin Luther who could and should have known better, but deployed the legitimate need for reform in the service of his own agenda which included the "reform" of the wrong things."

When all is said and done, the Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon. The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.

Such RC dogma and its man made tradition is incompatible with Holy Scripture. It is not only that such can't be found in Holy Scripture but that it opposes it!

While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12 Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the BibleIt is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible.

Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations.

As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not. Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition.

He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6). It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word. Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament.

While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12 Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the BibleIt is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible.

Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Does Not State a Preference for Oral TraditionThe Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. Sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.Sola Scriptura: The Bible Is Clear Apart from TraditionThe Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares. Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not InseparableKreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not ViolatedKreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate ScandalKreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison. Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it! Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….”14 Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living ApostlesKreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

" "Sola Scriptura" isn't in the Holy Scriptures either - however much you might try to insist that it is."

Actually Susanna, as the article from equip.org shows, Sola Scriptura IS in the Holy Scriptures throughout - however much you might try to insist that it isn't!

All tradition and dogma must be compatible with Holy Scripture subject to it, and give way to it. It is superior to all other written or oral authority otherwise such renders Holy Scripture of no effect. Yet, in truth, it is never of no effect because all Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of God Himself!

Such Roman Catholic dogma as Ray B noted is not only not to be found in Holy Scripture but flagrantly violates its principles and stands opposed to it.

Therefore, such Roman Catholic dogma which adds and takes away from Holy Scripture does exactly what Islam does (which also claims it has its roots in the Abrahamic Faith of Judeo-Christianity). The RC Catechism is no more valid than the Koran (perhaps that's why both John Paul II and Benedict XVI had no problem in kissing and adoring the Unholy Koran?). Both RC tradition and Islam, alongside Kabbalist and Talmudist Phariseeism, have their roots in the Ancient Babylonian Mystery religion. Of the spirit of Nimrod (alongside the NAM movement, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baal worship, Sikhism, etc, etc, etc) rather than that of Abraham.

So I reiterate to Ray B:

Don't expect your challenge to be met honestly. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could find such RC claims in the Holy Scriptures because they are not there nor compatible with it!

So, Ray, I predicted rightly ( as Susanna has demonstrated), that a side-stepping, an attempt to muddy the waters and twist Holy Scripture or a complete refusal (voiced or silent) to address RC claims in the light of Holy Scripture will be your answer here: simply, to reiterate, because it cannot be done!

Such Romish doctrine is unbiblical and therefore nothing but the deceiving and enslaving doctrines of men!

" "Sola Scriptura" isn't in the Holy Scriptures either - however much you might try to insist that it is."

Actually Susanna, as the article from equip.org shows, Sola Scriptura IS in the Holy Scriptures throughout - however much you might try to insist that it isn't!

All tradition and dogma must be compatible with Holy Scripture and must be subject to it, and give way to it. It is superior to all other written or oral authority otherwise such renders Holy Scripture of no effect. Yet, in truth, it is never of no effect because all Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of God Himself!

Such Roman Catholic dogma as Ray B noted is not only not to be found in Holy Scripture but flagrantly violates its principles and stands opposed to it.

Therefore, such Roman Catholic dogma which adds and takes away from Holy Scripture does exactly what Islam does (which also claims it has its roots in the Abrahamic Faith of Judeo-Christianity). The RC Catechism is no more valid than the Koran (perhaps that's why both John Paul II and Benedict XVI had no problem in kissing and adoring the Unholy Koran?). Both RC tradition and Islam, alongside Kabbalist and Talmudist Phariseeism, have their roots in the Ancient Babylonian Mystery religion. Of the spirit of Nimrod (alongside the NAM movement, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baal worship, Sikhism, etc, etc, etc) rather than that of Abraham.

So I reiterate to Ray B:

Don't expect your challenge to be met honestly. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could find such RC claims in the Holy Scriptures because they are not there nor compatible with it!

So, Ray, I predicted rightly ( as Susanna has demonstrated), that a side-stepping, an attempt to muddy the waters and twist Holy Scripture or a complete refusal (voiced or silent) to address RC claims in the light of Holy Scripture will be your answer here: simply, to reiterate, because it cannot be done!

Such Romish doctrine is unbiblical and therefore nothing but the deceiving and enslaving doctrines of men!

Oh, on a side note: Greek Orthodoxy (EO) is of the same ilk as Roman Catholicism. These two hold no more validity to claim to be part of the Holy Church than do Jehovah's Witnessism, the so-called Prosperity Movement, SDA, Mormonism, or Rosicrucianism, etc!

Which is why the RC was so keen to bail out the EO against Islam yet happily slaughtered thousands of Middle Eastern Christians during the Crusades!

The only "clear" answer by your definition would be an answer that squared with your agenda.

Re: Actually Susanna, as the article from equip.org shows, Sola Scriptura IS in the Holy Scriptures throughout - however much you might try to insist that it isn't!

Keep telling yourself that! Hannegraff's equip.org doesn't "show" anything. In fact, he has been criticised by Protestants for sloppy scholarship even when criticising fellow Protestants.

For example, James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Ontario Theological Seminary in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Hannegraff's Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research".

If you are preaching "Sola Scriptura," you have to be able to prove it from the Scriptures alone and you cannot. Sure, you can spin certain passages of Scripture in order to make the Bible say what it doesn't say, but there is nowhere in the Bible where it CLEARLY states that the Bible is the ONLY source of divinely revealed Christian truth. However, if you are content to believe otherwise, far be it from me to rain on your parade. Fortunately, I don't have to refer to your beliefs at all in order to validate my own.

Re: Of the spirit of Nimrod (alongside the NAM movement, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baal worship, Sikhism, etc, etc, etc) rather than that of Abraham.

By the way, it was Martin Luther who "took away" fromn the Old Testament when he ditched the Septuagint and substituted the Hebrew Bible which was put together by a group of anti=Christian Jewish rabbis at Jamniawho were more interested in appeasing the pagan Emperor Vespasian than they were with the truth. THAT's the real reason why they omitted the Books of the Maccabees which tells the story about a Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes a pagan client of Rome and type of Antichrist.

(8:50 AM continued) And finally, to add to that abominable mix of heresy, which stands opposed to Holy Writ and the Spirit thereof, are:

1. Lutherism (with its abominable teachings of consubstantiation ((akin to transubstantiation) also, Luther called the Letter of James, "an epistle of straw", I'll trust St. James over Luther any day of the week, thank you very much!

2. Calvinism ; with its disgusting distortions as to election, God's nature and His Sovereignty (God is also Sovereign Love, the Calvinists forget that), foreknowledge and predestination.

For God so loved the World that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life! John 3:16

Note, it doesn't state:

For God so loved the predestined and arbitrarily chosen elect that He gave His Only Begotten Son that such predestined arbitrarily chosen elect would believe in Him without any free choice of their own should not perish but have everlasting life!

Calvin, alongside many popes was a liar and an unrepentant murderer like his father the Devil. He was a blind guide, a veritable thornbush whereon no grapes were to be found!

I didn't leave Roman Catholicism to become a Lutheran or Calvinist but to become a true born again Christian.

Calvin and Luther are as fallible as the RC Popes, despite what others may confer (consciously or otherwise) on them.

I won't follow a so-called pope, Roman Catholic or otherwise. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and don't need false teachers such as so-called Pope Francis and his predecessors, nor any of the EO so-called patriarchs, nor Calvin, Luther, Miller and Ellen White, Joseph Smith, Russell and Rutherford, etc, etc!

I implore you all to reject anything and everything that stands opposed to God's Holy Truth found in the Holy Scriptures!

Susanna, with respect, you are in denial. Though you have eyes you cannot see. The article I posted clearly states the Supremacy of Sola Scriptura and what is meant by it, as well as showing clearly how Sola Scriptura IS taught and woven into Holy Scripture throughout, in the same way as the Triune nature of God is.

Sola Scriptura means that Holy Writ is supreme and other writings must be compatible with, in harmony with, and subject to Holy Writ.

May God bless you greatly and give you and other Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox followers eyes to see, as well as open the eyes of those Protestants currently blinded by the falsehoods of Calvin and Luther, etc.

The Holy Spirit is our guide in interpreting Holy Scripture not a Pope, Patriarch, Calvin, Luther, etc. We must be obedient to God rather than man!

Ray B wrote to you at 9:40 PM: "Fair enough ... I can't "convince" you that I've studied RCC doctrine & dogma. So, instead of trying to "convince" you that I have, how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?"

The 11 to 16 books of the Apocrypha were written in the 400 years between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. While the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches treat some of these books as Scripture, Protestant Christians never have. Why is this?

The Jews never considered them as part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They believed that there was, throughout that period, no voice of the prophets in Israel. They looked forward to a day when “a faithful prophet” would appear (1 Maccabees 9:27). For the Jews, God’s revelation of the Scriptures through the prophets ended around 430 BC with the book of Malachi.Jesus and the Apostles never considered the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures. Although there are hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament, never did Jesus or the apostles quote from the Apocrypha. Incidentally, the authors of the Bible do refer to other books, but this does not make them Scripture.Unlike the Old Testament prophets, none of the books of the Apocrypha ever claimed divine authority.Some parts of the Apocrypha contain historical blunders.The community who copied the Dead Sea scrolls never gave the same authority to books of the Apocrypha as to the Old Testament books.

Re:Susanna, with respect, you are in denial. Though you have eyes you cannot see. The article I posted clearly states the Supremacy of Sola Scriptura and what is meant by it, as well as showing clearly how Sola Scriptura IS taught and woven into Holy Scripture throughout, in the same way as the Triune nature of God is.

With respect YOU are the one in denial.

I don't care what the yards of articles you posted "clearly state." Since "Sola Scriptura" is your rule of faith, the only thing you need to show me is what the Bible "clearly states." And the Bible itself - apart from extra-biblical articles - does not "clearly state" that Scripture is the ONLY source of divinely revealed Christian truth. Now if you don't have a problem with a self-contradictory rule of faith, find and dandy. Just don't try to sell it to me because I'm not buying.

Re 7:38 A.M. Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true.

Which "Catholic scholars?????"

At best, a failure to cite one's exact sources is an example of sloppy scholarship. At worst, it suggests that no such "Catholic scholars" exist and that the author is being less than truthful. Moreover, if these so-called Catholic scholars "recognize it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true, then they are not "Catholic scholars" at all. They are heretics. And stupid heretics at that. True Catholic scholars would know better.

Re:Sola Scriptura means that Holy Writ is supreme and other writings must be compatible with, in harmony with, and subject to Holy Writ.

Right there, you are mistaken. Sola Scriptura is Latin for "Scriptures alone," not "Holy Writ is supreme." Neither does the Bible say that Holy Writ is the "supreme authority" in all matters of doctrine and practice.

The Reformed Churches were unanimous in declaring the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. "We believe that the only rule and standard by which all dogmas and all doctors are to be weighed and judged, is nothing else but the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments" (Formula Concordiae, 1577).

In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul indicates that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are of equal weight.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Also, when you cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as "proof" for Sola Scriptura," you might want to quit cherry-picking your proof texts and include verse 14!!!

A Sufficient Rule of Faith?

At this point the missionary probably will bring up one of several verses (as proof for Sola Scriptura). The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient" — which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means......

....The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17).

In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings — the traditions — that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

With respect, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura......however many times you say it does. Saying it does is not the same thing as PROVING it does. And you have not been able to PROVE that it does.

Re:Now, again, with respect Susanna, please address Ray B's points.

Ray B wrote to you at 9:40 PM: "Fair enough ... I can't "convince" you that I've studied RCC doctrine & dogma. So, instead of trying to "convince" you that I have, how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?"

As for RayB, he can't convince me that he has studied much of ANYTHING about Christianity period except for what his extra-biblical "popes" say.....like "Pope" Boettner, "Pope" Hislop, "Pope" Jack Chick, "Pope" Chiniquy.....Did I miss anybody?

With respect, RayB's points HAVE been addressed by me and by other Catholics in past threads on this very blog. Why don't you and he go and look them up? THAT ought to keep you BOTH busy!

As for me, I have no intention of legitimizing RayB's anti-Catholic rants by trying to "convince" him of anything according to what he imagines to be "God's Word."

"As for me, I have no intention of legitimizing RayB's anti-Catholic rants by trying to "convince" him of anything according to what he imagines to be "God's Word."

Susanna,

I simply listed a small number of Roman Catholic Doctrines & Dogma and kindly asked you to provide Scriptural proof for them. How is it you interpret that to be "anti-Catholic rants?"

Susanna also stated:

"With respect, RayB's points HAVE been addressed by me and by other Catholics in past threads on this very blog. Why don't you and he go and look them up? THAT ought to keep you BOTH busy!"

Susanna,

I have never posted that list before while asking for Scriptural proof as to their validity. You claim that these points "HAVE been addressed by" you and by "other Catholics." Please direct me to the blog/post where I posted this list before and where and by whom these points have been addressed.

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul indicates that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are of equal weight."

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15"

Susanna,

Please note that Paul is referring to the "traditions" that have been "learned" as in PAST TENSE. Also, Paul's epistles ARE inspired by the Holy Spirit and ARE the Word of God. Once the New Testament was written, the revelation from God was closed. See Revelation 22: 18 & 19.

By the way, much is made of the Papacy being a continuation from the Apostolic age. Peter (RCC claims to be the first "pope" ... I don't) performed a number of miracles that are recorded in Scripture, among which is the dramatic raising up of the dead woman named Dorcas “But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.” Acts 9:40

Question for you Susanna: If the Papacy is based on Apostolic succession (as Roman Catholicism claims), why is it that the Popes (after Peter) cannot raise the dead and perform the very same dramatic miracles such as the Apostles performed?

St. Paul was referring to the Old Testament. When Timothy was a child, the New Testament had not yet been written. The “Scripture” known to Timothy since childhood (2 Timothy 3:15), could only have been the Old Testament.

Paul is also referring to the Old Testament in Romans 3:2, 1 Corinthians 10:11,Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 4:12.

In fact, Paul constantly used the Old Testament as the authority for his teaching! More importantly, he used the Septuagint. Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are based on the LXX, not the Hebrew. So important is the LXX for our faith that many aspects of the message of the New Testament cannot be sufficiently grasped without it and in some cases the claims of the New Testament theologically depend on the peculiarities of the LXX.

For example,

Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as a messianic prophecy:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me."

The author has directly quoted from the LXX Psalter. A quick turn to our modern Bibles will confirm that the Hebrew text reads:

If we follow this latter reading, the author of Hebrews (St. Paul) has not only misquoted the passage, but has made it an important plank of his argument. Only the rendering of the LXX justifies this as a Messianic passage. Did the author of Hebrews get it wrong? Was it an inspired mistake?

I don't think so, because as I have pointed out earlier, before his dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus, St. Paul was a devout Pharisee who studied at the feet of the great Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. I cannot imagine St. Paul misquoting such an important Old Testament passage - especially given the frequency with which he refers to Our Lord as "Kyrios" which was the Greek equivalent in the Septuagint for Yahweh, Adonai and Shaddai, the Hebrew names - especially Yahweh - that were never used to refer to anyone but God.

Another example and most importantly, it is only in the LXX that Isaiah's prophecy of the Virgin Birth makes its bold appearance (Is 7:14). The Hebrew text uses the word "woman" ("marah") instead of "virgin" ("parthenos"). In their earliest confrontations with Christians, the Jews objected most strongly to this verse being used to support of Jesus' Messiahship. The Jews claimed that Isaiah was prophesying of King Hezekiah and he knew nothing of a miraculous virgin birth. The Septuagint, they said, had been tampered with. The early Christians responded by claiming that it was not they, but the Jews who had cut passages out of the Hebrew text out of envy. (Justin Martyr, Trypho, 71-73)

If we agree with the ancient Jews that the LXX translation was a faulty translation, then why is this inferior text part of Holy, Inspired Scripture? If we follow the usage of the New Testament - even by Christ Himself - could it not be said that the LXX was considered trustworthy and even preferred by Jesus and the Apostles? This is not out of harmony with the testimony of the Early Church in the Greek speaking world, which, as partly evidenced by the earlier patristic quotation, regarded it as a sound and inspired translation.

All Scripture is inspired and, in both St. Paul and St. Timothy's mind, that meant the LXX. So much is clear. But the LXX included the books that are known today by non-Catholic Christians as the Apocrypha.

The earliest copies of the Greek Bible we possess, such as the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Siniaticus (4-5th centuries) include the Apocrypha. And it is not placed in a separate section in the back of the codex but is rather interspersed by book according to literature type — the historical books with Kings and Chronicles, the wisdom literature with Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, and so forth.

These books were used by the Hellenic Jewish communities and certain Palestinian Jewish groups such as the Essenes. The Apocrypha retained respect in various Jewish communities until around thirty years after Paul's death when a group of Pharisees met in the so-called council of Jamnia with permission from Emperor Vespasian, and discussed a number of issues, among which was the Jewish canon. Although the influence and authority of this council is disputed, what is clear is that in its aftermath the Apocrypha was decidedly rejected by the Pharisees, who then proceeded to dominate Judaism.

As for the "authority" issue, apparently, the Jews of Ethiopia were never made privy to the Jamnian proninciamentos because they have continued to use the Septuagint to this very day.

It seems unusual that most Evangelical Christians today embrace Jamnia as defining their canon. Especially given the fact that the men at this "council" were not Christians. Not only were they not Christians, they were vehemently opposed to Christ and the Apostles and intended to obliterate it from Jewish life. The early Christians paid no heed to the council of Jamnia and continued to use the "Apocrypha," and with good reason. Read, for instance, what is written in the book of Wisdom:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him. (Wisdom 2:12-20)

Is such a powerful Messianic passage, written before Christ, merely a coincidence? Or could the deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint ( "Apocrypha" ) be inspired Scripture?

While it is true there are no direct quotations in the New Testament from the Apocrypha, we should recognize that there are allusions to and use of the Apocrypha.

Just to cite one example, when the Sadducees came to Jesus to challenge him on the issue of the Resurrection (Mt 22:23-33), they refer to seven brothers among them who, in turn, married the same woman, dying before having children. This story is neither ludicrous nor an invention. Rather, it is a speculative question probably based on the situation of Sarah in Tobit (Tob 3:7-17). She found herself facing perpetual virginity as seven marriages had resulted in death, each husband dying on the night of their marriage. "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be?" asked the Sadducees regarding Sarah's plight

Jesus' parable of the widow and the uncaring judge (Lk 18:1-8) is a variation of a set of proverbs found in the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclus 35:13-15).

St. Paul makes numerous allusions to the wisdom and power of God which have powerful affinity with the Book of Wisdom, the theology of which is strongly Christian. One fine example of this is found in Romans:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mean, because all sinned. (Rom 5:12)

This understanding of the Fall does not depend solely on the passage in Genesis, which does not directly blame the existence of sin today on Adam's transgression. It is there, but St. Paul's exegesis of this passage is informed by Wisdom:

But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. (Wis 2:24)

It is true that the inspired authors of the New Testament do not call the deuterocanonical ( "apocryphal" ) books inspired. But what books do the NT authors declare to be inspired?

The argument can cut both ways. There are seventeen books the New Testament does not quote—Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles to name but a few. Are these then dubious? In fact, the Bible doesn't specifically call any book inspired, aside from the passage in II Timothy. Should we?

Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius are specifically cited by Geisler and Nix as speaking against the Apocrypha. This is quite an interesting allegation because anyone familiar with the writings of these, and other Church Fathers, (except for Origen) will know that precisely the opposite is true. Regarding Origen... actually, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the Holy Fathers of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod. This does not mean, however, that he did not have many good things to say. To think otherwise would be an instance of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Origen, in his commentaries on the Gospels of St. John and St. Matthew, cites Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, additions to Daniel and Esdras I. Other Fathers before Origen, such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus all quote from the Apocrypha. It is difficult to find a Father who does not quote the Apocrypha as Scripture.

It is true that the Reformers generally subscribed to the Hebrew canon. But even then they were not hostile towards the Apocrypha. Luther included them in his translation of the Bible as being helpful to read. The original translation of the King James Version included the Apocrypha and was included in subsequent printings until the 19th century. According to the Book of Common Prayer it was them that "the [English] Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." (Art 6).

So how it is that the Apocrypha has fallen from honor to derision?

Again, the testimony, or lack thereof, of these Jewish scholars ( i.e. Philo, Josephus and the "Council of Jamnia") carried little weight with Christians in the early centuries. Should it be any different for us? Were the anti-Christian sons of the Pharisees spiritually fit to establish the canon? In trying to redirect authority for the canon from the Greek to the Hebraic world, Bible scholars Dr. Norman Geisler and William Nix state:

"Palestine was the home of the Jewish canon, not Alexandria, Egypt. The great Greek learning center in Egypt was no authority in determining which books belonged in the Jewish Old Testament." (Geisler & Nix, From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, 96)

Certainly Alexandria was not the "home" of the Jewish canon, but does the Old Testament belong to Jews or Christians? The question for us does not revolve around what was in the Jewish Old Testament but the Christian one! Who are the competent authorities on that question? If we respect the Jewish decision on the canon, should we then reconsider our position regarding the Messiah, the Sabbath and the Law?

With regard to St. Jerome who had his doubts about the canonicity of the Apocrypha,the opinions of one man do not form the mind of the Church and St. Augustine, his contemporary, begged to differ with his opinion about the Apocrypha, as did previous and later Fathers.

Lastly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has been most faithful to the Apostles' Old Testament. They retain the Septuagint and generally base their translations of the Old Testament on it. Without needing objective proof for the veracity of this translation, they have simply held to what the Apostles gave them. Their approach to the canon has not been philosophical or deductive, but spiritual, trusting that God established and is now watching over the Church which He established.

In the West we have always tended to laugh at this kind of childish faith, preferring that which is "more concrete and objective." Yet there has been glaring vindication of Eastern simplicity this century. The Dead Sea Scrolls testify to the general reliability of the LXX. As the various passages of the Bible have been translated and published, scholars have realized that previous dismissal of the LXX has been premature. Passages from the Law and historical books have uncovered evidence for a separate Hebrew textual recension which underlies the translation of the LXX. More times than not the ancient manuscripts of Qumran agree with the Greek against the Massoretic Text.

Most Protestant arguments for the Old Testament canon are, at best, ad hoc. Their leaders and teachers paint a simple, pristine picture of the transmission of Scripture, as if the canon was all but leather-bound and cross-referenced. "This canon is true because it is self-evident, internally consistent and all sensible early testimony agrees with us," goes the typical argument. And when, in opening the record of history, it is found to be not the case, they add a long string of 'but's and 'except's. This does not go very far. With such an approach to the Scriptures, trying to take them out of their place in history, is it any wonder why so many Bible-believing Christians have lost their faith to Liberals, who are willing to deal more properly and more thoroughly with the historical record?

And please do not think I am throwing stones here. We Catholics have our own neo-modernist biblical "exegetes" - some of whom ( i.e. Hans Kung in his book DOES GOD EXIST? ) have even gone so far as to cherry-pick translations of the Sacred Scriptures to place the divinity of Christ in doubt.

Susannah, a belated Merry Christmas to you and to Constance. A peaceful 2016 to all. I must say that there is a sense of renewal at Christmas Mass, even though I suppose one would expect that from an Easter Mass but there is something about Christmas Mass that reminds us all of what its all about and that when we celebrate every 25th December its got nothing to do with all the fakery that is pushed to make a dollar. Interestingly our Vigil Mass homily was all about the simple, quiet, non fuss arrival of Jesus into the world. Its sad so many forget, and even more have no clue.

In this second of three related articles on Roman Catholic Tradition, we examine 2 Thess. 2:15. The other two articles examine 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Thess. 3:6. The first part of each article is the same because it is relevant to each article. To jump to the analysis of 2 Thess. 2:15, scroll down.

2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours," (New American Bible, vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10W.HTM)2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us," (NASB)2 Thess. 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle," (KJV)Background information on the word, "tradition," in the New Testament

The word, "tradition," is "παράδοσιν." It occurs 13 times in the Greek New Testament. The NASB has 13 occurrences of the word. The NIV has 11 occurrences. The KJV has 13. Following is every occurrence of the word in the New Testament.

The word, "tradition," is "παράδοσιν." It occurs 13 times in the Greek New Testament.

Matt. 15:2, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”Matt. 15:3, "And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"Matt. 15:6, "he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."Mark 7:3, "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders."Mark 7:5, "And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, 'Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?'"Mark 7:8, "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."Mark 7:9, "He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."Gal. 1:14, "and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions."Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."2 Thess 2:15, "so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."Of the 13 occurrences of the word, "tradition," in the New Testament, one (Matt 15:3) is where the Pharisees ask Jesus why His disciples didn't follow the tradition of the elders. One is a comment by Mark (Mark 7:3) of how the Pharisees washed before eating. In each of the remaining accounts in Matthew and Mark (six occurrences), Jesus responds to the Pharisees by condemning them for their traditions (Matt 15:3, 6, Mark 7:5, 8, 9, 13) and thus negating the Word of God. This is hugely important because Jesus is telling us that traditions are not to contradict God's Word. Continued...

This leaves us with five other occurrences. Of those, Gal. 1:14, is where Paul mentions his ancestral traditions. He is not referring generically to the traditions of Israel but of the Pharisees. Col. 2:8 is speaking generically of the "traditions of men" as contrasted against the Gospel of Christ.

This leaves us with three verses (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6) that use the word, tradition, and it is from these three verses that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to support its view that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is to be followed.

2 Thess 2:15

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

In the New American Bible and the KJV the verse begins with "therefore." In the NASB it says, "so then." This means that we must look at the preceding context to see what Paul was talking about. If we do this, we clearly see that Paul is telling the Thessalonians to stand firm in what they had been taught about the second coming of Christ since that is the context. It is not about Sacred Tradition. Let's take a look.

In 2 Thess. 2:1-3 Paul says, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." Obviously, Paul is speaking about the return of Christ. He continues and warns the Thessalonians not to be deceived because the return of Christ won't happen until after the apostacy (v. 3). Paul had already instructed them about this in v. 5. He then speaks of the Man of Lawlessness in vv. 6-10 and the coming delusion (vv. 11-12). Then Paul says that God has chosen them for salvation (v. 13) and called them through the gospel (v. 14). It is after this that Paul then tells the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught. He is telling the Thessalonians to stand firm in the teaching of the return of Christ.

ConclusionThe Tradition being spoken of is the teaching about the second coming of Christ. There is nothing in the text about continuing tradition or oral tradition being passed down from one person to another for 2,000 years. For the Roman Catholic church to lift the issue of tradition out of its context and apply it to its own "Sacred Tradition" is a clear violation of what the verse is saying.

Re:Question for you Susanna: If the Papacy is based on Apostolic succession (as Roman Catholicism claims), why is it that the Popes (after Peter) cannot raise the dead and perform the very same dramatic miracles such as the Apostles performed?

The function of the Apostolic succession is not defined in terms of the ability of the successors of the Apostles to perform miracles. It is defined in terms of preserving true Christian doctrine and handing it on to successors. It is not so much a matter of the possibility of their performing miracles being precluded. It is more a matter of miracles being less common because less necessary.

As you are aware, miracles were once everyday events that confirmed the truth of Christian teachings. According to the New Testament, God's purpose in performing miracles was to convince disbelievers. Jesus cured a blind man specifically in order to prove who he was. Peter and the apostles performed similar miracles — again specifically to prove their divine appointment.

After Peter and the Apostles established Christ's Church, there was increasingly less need for miracles to signify that the Good News of our salvation came from God. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church.

There are conflicting traditions and legends about what happened to the Apostles. But according to what is available, it is said that with the exception of St.John the Evangelist (a "white martyr"), Peter and all the Apostles died as martyrs for preaching the Gospel. The first 31 popes, with the exception of Zephyrinus died as martyrs.

St. John is referred to as a "white martyr" because according to tradition, as he was about to be boiled in oil, he was miraculously delivered by God. It was because the Romans couldn't kill John that he was exiled to Patmos where he wrote the Book of Revelation..

Thanks, but how do you know that the oral traditions to which Paul referred at that pointy in his letter were not those about Jesus which shortly afterwards became the gospels?

Also, i think that LXX vs Hebrew OT is a false dichotomy. you lose so many overtones in any translation, of anything. If I were up to it as a scholar then I'd read the Hebrew except for the messianic passages, for which I'd prefer LXX for the reasons you give.

Matt Slick's understanding of "tradition" may be ok in one sense, but his understanding of Sacred TRADITION is flawed.

The revealed truths of Christianity recordeded in the New Testament were ORIGINALLY transmitted ORALLY by Christ Himself to the Apostles.

The revelation that Jesus is "the Christ the Son of the living God" was directly revealed by God the Father personally and directly to Peter and confirmed by Jesus who used the FUTURE tense when He said "Upon this rock I WILL build my Church."

THIS is what Roman Catholics regard as Sacred Tradition and THIS is why Sacred Scripture is inseparable from Sacred Tradition. And since the Sacred Tradition is also a living Tradition it includes correct interpretation and application as well as transmission at all times and in all places.

Re:This leaves us with three verses (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6) that use the word, tradition, and it is from these three verses that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to support its view that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is to be followed.

Actually, I don't have to rely on a few verses from the Bible to support Sacred Tradition because it is the Church that gave us the whole Bible, not the Bible that gave us the Church. Again, Slick is wrong both biblically and historically. At Pentecost, it wasn't Bibles that descended on the heads of the Apostles, but the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire.

Re: Conclusion

The Tradition being spoken of is the teaching about the second coming of Christ. There is nothing in the text about continuing tradition or oral tradition being passed down from one person to another for 2,000 years. For the Roman Catholic church to lift the issue of tradition out of its context and apply it to its own "Sacred Tradition" is a clear violation of what the verse is saying.

Here, Slick seems to be assuming that the Catholic Church somehow needs to use the Protestant Sola Scriptura Rule of Faith in order to prove her own Rule of Faith which is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Actually, the Catholic Church isn't lifting the issue of Tradition out of its context. It is the Protestants who have lifted Sacred Scriptures out of their proper context....namely the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are inseparable since again, Scripture is derived from Sacred Tradition.

There is nothing in the Sacred Scriptures about the Bible being the ONLY source of revealed Christian truth either. As a matter of fact, it was St. John who wrote in John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Again, for Catholics, Sacred Tradition is the revealed truth of the Christian faith originally transmitted orally to Peter and the Apostles by Christ.

Slick's position doesn't even make sense from the "Sola Scriptura" Rule of Faith.

By his standard, we should never have even heard of Christianity at all if a "continuing tradition" - whether written or oral - were precluded by its not being explicitly mentioned in Holy Writ.

The reason why "Sacred Tradition" is so-called is PRECISELY because Sacred TRADITION is where the Bible originates.

Sacred tradition or holy tradition is a theological term used in some Christian traditions, primarily in the Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions, to refer to the fundamental basis of church authority.

The word "tradition" is taken from the Latin trado, tradere meaning to hand over, to deliver, or to bequeath. The teachings of Jesus and his Apostles are preserved in writing in the Bible as well as word of mouth and are handed on. This perpetual handing-on of the Tradition is called a living Tradition; it is the transmission of the teachings of the Apostles from one generation to the next. The term "deposit of faith" refers to the entirety of Jesus Christ's revelation, and is passed to successive generations in two different forms, sacred scripture (the Bible) and sacred tradition (through apostolic succession).

In the theology of these churches, sacred scripture is the written part of this larger tradition, recording (albeit sometimes through the work of individual authors) the community's experience of God or more specifically of Jesus Christ. Hence the Bible must be interpreted within the context of sacred tradition and within the community of the church. Sacred tradition, and thus sacred scripture as well, are "inspired," another technical theological term indicating that they contain and communicate the truths of faith and morals God intended to make known for mankind's salvation. This is in contrast to many Protestant traditions, which teach that the Bible alone is a sufficient basis for all Christian teaching (a position known as sola scriptura)......

....In the English language, "sacred tradition" is more likely to be used in reference to Catholicism and "holy tradition" in reference to Eastern Orthodoxy, although the two terms are interchangeable in meaning.....

The context for the New Testament is the Old Testament, and the Old Testament doesn't mention the church, so there is no need for any church tradition to interpret the scriptures about the church, is there?

RE:Thanks, but how do you know that the oral traditions to which Paul referred at that pointy in his letter were not those about Jesus which shortly afterwards became the gospels?

I am sorry. I should have made myself more clear. In 2 Timothy 3:10-17 The traditions to which Paul refers could have been about Jesus. But the Scriptures to which he refers are a different matter because none of the New Testament books had yet been written when Timothy was a child.

The Timothy passage is discussed in following article by Tim Staples, a former Southern Baptist.

According to Scripture By: Tim Stapleshttp://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/according-to-scripture

"I agree about the Christmas Mass and our encounter with the Prince of Peace our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Cheers,

Susanna"

ENCOUNTER:verb (used with object)1.to come upon or meet with, especially unexpectedly:to encounter a new situation.2.to meet with or contend against (difficulties, opposition, etc.):We encounter so many problems in our work.3.to meet (a person, military force, etc.) in conflict:We will encounter the enemy at dawn.verb (used without object)4.to meet, especially unexpectedly or in conflict:We were angry when we encountered, but we parted with smiles.noun5.a meeting with a person or thing, especially a casual, unexpected, or brief meeting:Our running into each other was merely a chance encounter.6.a meeting of persons or groups that are in conflict or opposition; combat; battle:Another such encounter and we may lose the war.7.Psychology. a meeting of two or more people, as the members of an encounter group or a number of married couples (marriage encounter) conducted to promote direct emotional confrontations among the participants, especially as a form of therapy (encounter therapy)

"Hence the Bible must be interpreted within the context of sacred tradition and within the community of the church."

This seems to me to be a more stable and enduring method of preserving the Truth than letting every man interpret the Bible as he sees fit, as it contains built-in mechanisms of "self-correction", which would tend to minimize error.

Would it be true to say that there are fewer Catholic/Orthodox-based cults than there are Protestant-based ones? Or am I oversimplifying to try and categorize in such a way?

Thank God we have you to 'speak up' for 'us'. And yes, Paul's story is the greatest example of 'an encounter', if ever there was one !! And that is what I love about Jesus. He didn't go and nab the next most 'holy' soul out there to spread the word, did he? nope, it makes more of a point if you nab someone who would never ever change their tune - and then did, had to, had no choice when he saw the glory and power of the Lord.Paul. And before there was any 'bible' we Catholics had Tradition. If the bible were never put together, we'd STILL have the Tradition. And that Tradition is simply the instructions given by Christ to the Apostles (that he chose for this purpose) to pass on and on and on to this day. Hence the whole system of Pope, Bishops, priests etc. It seems a difficult thing being Christian, never mind Catholic in this day and age so I appreciate your efforts Susannah (you are a great Keeper of the Word).

Jesus was a bully and we are still sore over Paul's conversion and success as the chosen apostle and Bible author in so many places.

6:57 PM(meaning?)We want to control the conscious of the Protestants, they are bad. They need to be 'told' what to think about the Bible, like before Luther.

conscious[kon-shuh s]

Synonyms Examples Word Origin

adjective1.aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.2.fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of):conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.3.having the mental faculties fully active:He was conscious during the operation.

7:14 PM (meaning?)

Yes, that Bible that Paul put together is not the traditions of men which we wrote, own and once maintained at the source of all 'christian' belief.

Me: Paul, textus receptus, Jesus, Truth, freedom of conscious, KJ onlists, sola scriptura-ists, all a big problem for Lucifer as always. I am no longer influenced by the theater. I suppose I should go knit or something and pray for you all. The fear of the lord is the beginning of all knowledge and I am terribly afraid for your souls.

"The fear of the lord is the beginning of all knowledge and I am terribly afraid for your souls."

I agree.

So let those who berate others here, who attack the faith of others, who cast stones, who slander, who put words in the mouths of others (bear false witness), who hold grudges, who harbor unforgiveness - let those be afraid! For those are the ones to whom Jesus gave the sternest warnings while He walked among us.

He loves His Church! And it will be what HE makes of it, not what we make of it. Whoever threatens His Bride - he or she should cower in fear! If anyone would trip up and cause to stumble one of His own, let him or her repent while there is time! He has nothing good to say of such people, and they are not of Him.

We argue and fight among ourselves, and the world goes to hell all around us. Do you think you will be awarded greatly for this when you stand (or rather, kneel, or fall face down) before the Lord?

The ones here who show the least mercy and grace and kindness to others, receive back what they dish out. What does our Lord think when he sees the actions of the people who call themselves by His name?

For the longest time I could not understand why Constance continues to let certain people post here, when they only seem to cause dissension, confusion, chaos. But I think I understand now. We are all on the same side. Whoever is not against us is for us.

There are so many real, obvious and successful enemies out there. OUT THERE. The enemies here on this blog are mostly contrived. It's pretty simple:

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:9 KJV

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 KJV

Those verses can describe Catholic believers, Protestant believers, and any other "brand" of believer. And it really can be that simple. They do not describe New Agers, homosexuals, murderers, liars, slanderers..... and the list goes on.

Yes, a little dose of fear can go a long way. What *I* fear is that people have forgotten how to fear the Lord. That is evident in some of our postings. Do you think it just might be possible that in the measure we dish it out to others, it will be dished out to us on that Day? And it won't be an anonymous individual hiding behind a keyboard doing the dishing out, it will be the King of Kings, the Lord of the universe, the One who created us! Does that not frighten you?

I just watched an old Western called "Stars In My Crown". It's based on the title of an old hymn. (And it's a pretty good movie, too! Hard to believe something like that came out of Hollywood.) It really got me thinking about how many I have influenced for Christ in my life. Will there be anyone at all in Heaven because of my faith in Jesus? Or have I kept Him all to myself, as my "get out of jail free card"? Conversely, and more fitting here, who might I have driven away from Him by saying the wrong thing, or the right thing the wrong way?

The enemy is doing his best work when he can get us to do his work for him. Divide and conquer. If we attack each other, and eventually destroy each other, who is left to fight him?

My New Year's resolution: Fight against the darkness and the dark king of this age, enjoining any - ANY - who are aligned against that same darkness to put aside differences that DO NOT MATTER, and fight the real enemy. If they know not Christ, perhaps in allying themselves with someone who - with God's grace and the Spirit's power, lifts the Lord on high, they might be drawn to Him. I can only hope.

Re: Me: Paul, textus receptus, Jesus, Truth, freedom of conscious, KJ onlists, sola scriptura-ists, all a big problem for Lucifer as always. I am no longer influenced by the theater. I suppose I should go knit or something and pray for you all. The fear of the lord is the beginning of all knowledge and I am terribly afraid for your souls.

First of all, the word is "conscience," not "conscious."

conscience

1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.

2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.

3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.

4. conscientiousness.

5. Obsolete. consciousness; self-knowledge.

6. Obsolete. strict and reverential observance. Idioms 7. have something on one's conscience, to feel guilty about something, as an act that one considers wrong: She behaves as if she had something on her conscience.

8. in all conscience, a.in all reason and fairness. b.certainly; assuredly. Also, in conscience.

_____________________________________________

free·dom of con·science

noun 1. the right to follow one's own beliefs in matters of religion and morality.________________________________________________________________________________

"Freedom of conscience" cuts both ways. If you want your Christian "freedom of conscience" to be respected, you need to respect the Christian "freedom of conscience" of others......especially when "others" who post here are minding their own business and not bothering you.

The Church Fathers were close to Christ in time but far away in culture (Greek rather than Hebraic) and therefore deserve no elevation over the apostolic-era writers who knew Christ in the flesh, the men who (together with their contemporary St Paul) wrote the New Testament. The Fathers might play a privileged role in exegesis for Western culture, because Western culture is a direct descendant of theirs, but on the world scale there are only the apostolic NT writings and, below those, exegeses for differing cultures, all of which are on a par with each other. Ancient Greek culture and thought is not sacred and the divergent opinions of the Fathers about various subjects are unwittingly reflected today in the divergent opinions of various denominations today. Criticise that diversity and you are, implicitly, criticising the Fathers.

As Susanna succinctly states *below, Roman Catholicism holds to the position that “Sacred Tradition” is equal in authority to the Scriptures. What Catholics such as Susanna don’t tell you is that their “traditions” actually surpass, in authority, the Word of God. This is no mere assertion, but is evidenced by their numerous doctrinal positions that are in direct conflict with what the Bible clearly teaches. Whenever a Catholic is shown what the Bible declares, one is typically met with scoffing, because Catholics are taught from infancy to believe in THEIR system of man-made doctrines (i.e. “traditions”), in place of God’s Word. Without a sovereign act of God, it is simply not possible to break thru with Catholics (or any other scoffer) when using God’s Word (“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him …” John 644a). Also, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2: 14 And, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

Roman Catholicism teaches that a person is initially “justified” through the sacrament of infant baptism (i.e. “Baptismal Regeneration”). The Sacrament of Baptism is then followed by a life-long obedience to an extensive, convoluted system of works & merit, upon which a Catholic continues to travel from a “state of grace” into one of perdition, and back again (depending upon obedience, or lack thereof, to their “system”). The assurance of salvation through Christ is not only frowned upon, it is CONDEMNED (Council of Trent). A Catholic is taught that they can be lost eternally by simply not attending weekly (with willful intent) “Mass” prior to their death. Aside from the eternal, unforgivable penalties of “mortal” sins (such as the aforementioned), the very best of Catholics must all spend an undeterminable amount of time in the fiery torments of “Purgatory” in order, so they claim, to further cleanse the Catholic from “sin” against their system.

Any person that has even a marginal understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ knows that the Roman Catholic “gospel” is blasphemous heresy, because it denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross. Roman Catholicism proclaims a “Christ” that does not even exist. Their “Christ” resides (body, soul, deity, essence) in the form of a wafer, “miraculously” changed into such by a sinful/man/priest. They then think that they are “receiving” Christ, over and over again, by eating this wafer changed into their “deity.” The TRUE Christ of the Bible resides today in Glory, risen, sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and in Spirit, within the hearts of all regenerated (via the new birth) people (“the Kingdom of God is within you").

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine upon them.” 2nd. Corinthians 4: 3-4

*Susanna previous statement to RayB:

“First of all, Sola Scriptura is YOUR rule of faith, not mine.”

“The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the two are inseperable (sic), it is because Scripture is itself part of the Sacred Tradition insofar as the Word of God was orally revealed to the Apostles by Christ before it was handed down to us in the written form we now call the Bible.”

As Susanna succinctly states *below, Roman Catholicism holds to the position that “Sacred Tradition” is equal in authority to the Scriptures. What Catholics such as Susanna don’t tell you is that their “traditions” actually surpass, in authority, the Word of God.

What I did say is that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are inseparable because Sacred Scripture is part of the Sacred Tradition. RayB's position is not only un-biblical, it is also un-historical.

Unfortunately, the inseparable relationship between Tradition (the word of God revealed to the living community of the Church) and Scripture remains as perhaps the single most misunderstood element of the true Christian religion among those who trace the origin of their particular faith tradition to the Reformation. Simply, Tradition is viewed today by some Christians as an intrusion on the word of God, when, in fact, it is just the opposite: it is essential to a fruitful and proper understanding of Scripture. One without the other diminishes the whole of God's revealed word.

The notion that Scripture should be interpreted in an isolated fashion apart from Tradition was foreign to the apostolic Church, as St. Paul attests: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15). It was not until Martin Luther and the Reformation in the sixteenth century that sola scriptura became entrenched in parts of Christendom. Thomas Bokenkotter wrote that for "Luther, 'Scripture alone' was the 'supreme authority' in religion-and henceforth this phrase became the rallying cry of all Protestants" (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, 208).

Further, Anglo-French writer and historian Hilaire Belloc noted that the main principle of the Reformation was a "reaction against a united spiritual authority" (The Great Heresies, 97). While the Reformation was ignited by a complex array of disagreements, clergy abuses, frustration over certain practices in the Church at that time, and other issues, it was nevertheless the tenet of "Scripture alone" which provided the reformers with an anchor point on which a break from the authority of the Catholic Church could be both implemented and, so it seems, sustained. The Christians of that period were Catholics and, in order to facilitate a break with Rome, it became necessary for Luther and other "reformers" to argue against the importance of Tradition and the authority of the Church: "Scripture alone" became the foundation of such an argument.

Sacred Tradition is the foundation upon which Sacred Scripture is built, for Tradition is of apostolic origin, and was first received into the Church by the Apostles who heard it from the Savior's own lips. These men, the foundation-stones of the Church (Eph. 2:20), went forth and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, handed on by "oral preaching, by their example, and by their ordinances, what they themselves had received." It was the "Apostles and others associated with them who, under the inspiration (of the) Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing" (Verbum Domini, 17-18).

It becomes, then, a question of whether Scripture contains the whole of God's revelation to his people. As much as we cherish Scripture, the answer can be nothing other than a definitive "no." In the economy of salvation God speaks to his people through history, creation, the prophets, and "most fully in the mystery of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God" (Verbum Domini, 7). It was the Person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, who self-communicated his word to the Apostles, informing them of what he desired them to know and what he wished them to communicate to the Church, the People for whom he gave up his life on the cross. The point is, the transmission of God's revelation took place first in the ecclesial community through oral preaching. Later, it was members of that same Church who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded in the New Testament some of the sayings and parables of Jesus, the mysteries of his life, his commands, and some of what had been revealed to the Apostles by the Spirit.

Through apostolic succession, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has faithfully cherished and transmitted the deposit of faith she received from Christ, which includes both Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Risen Lord's command: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16:15). Thus we can easily see that in order to access the fullness of truth -- the deposit of faith given the Church by Jesus Christ -- one must consult both Tradition and Scripture. The Gospel is both God's unwritten and written word, not, rather, simply the written word only. As Pope Benedict observed, "Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as the word of God" (Verbum Domini, 17-18).

In addition to "sola scriptura" which is not taught in the Bible, those Protestants who embrace it also believe in "private interpretation" which is also not taught in the Bible.

This is why many anti-Catholic Protestants wear themselves out dreaming up all manner of sensationalist accusations against Catholics, Orthodox and others......to shift the spotlight away from their self-contradictory rule of faith.

As for "private interpretation," RayB's private interpretation of Holy Writ is one of about 22,000 + interpretations - each claiming to be "Holy Spirit" - approved. Why should anyone believe that RayB's interpretation of Holy Writ - and Christianity in general - is any more correct than any of the other 22,000 + interpretations?

Moreover, since it is easy enough to find out what the Roman Catholic Church REALLY teaches, it is easy enough to expose RayB's anti-Catholic diatribes for what they are.

Again, "Sola Scriptura" is RayB's Rule of Faith, not mine.

And I stand by what I said:

*“The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the two are inseparable, it is because Scripture is itself part of the Sacred Tradition insofar as the Word of God was orally revealed to the Apostles by Christ before it was handed down to us in the written form we now call the Bible.”

When all is said and done, "Sola Scriptura" is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable.

Sola Scriptura, as the history of Protestantism itself has shown, inevitably becomes the private play toy of any self-styled "exegete" who wishes to interpret God's Word to suit his own views.

Even Martin Luther was finally able to see the inescapable principle of fragmentation and disunity that lies at the heart of his "sola scriptura" rule. In a letter to fellow "reformer" Urlich Zwingli, he complained bitterly about the doctrinal anarchy that was even then rampant among Protestants:

"If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the (Catholic) councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge."

Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)

250 AD

North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.

257 AD

Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.

300 AD

Prayers for the dead

320 AD

Special dress code of the clergy in worship

325 AD

At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

325 AD

The date for Easter was set.

379 AD

Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)

385 AD

In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

389 AD

Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

400 AD

Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)

416 AD

Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)

430 AD

Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus

502 AD

Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.

500 AD

The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)

519 AD

Lent

526 AD

Extreme Unction

593 AD

The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great

Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned

1870 AD

Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)

1908 AD

All Catholics should be christened into the church

1930 AD

Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)

1950 AD

Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)

1950 AD

Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)

I neglected to post this one, where the "pope" declares that "Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah" are all the same "entity."

AP On Monday the Bishop Of Rome addressed Catholic followers regarding the dire importance of exhibiting religious tolerance. During his hour-long speech, a smiling Pope Francis was quoted telling the Vatican’s guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings contained therein, are just as valid as the Holy Bible.

“Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now."

You do an excellent job of presenting the truth. May the Heavenly Father richly bless you brother.

It is nearly impossible to convince cultists because they do not possess the Holy Spirit. They love their cult, they don't understand the beauty and simplicity of the gospel. They feed off the cults phony unholy spirit. It's the type of bread they prefer.

Who cares what Martin Luther said. It is what the Holy Scriptures say that matters. There were Christians being persecuted by the Roman self named Catholic institution long before the Reformers came along.

The Holy Scriptures are not for private interpretation, not by a Pope, Luther or anyone. Why? BECAUSE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES MUST BE INTERPRETED THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT'S GUIDANCE!

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, .......wait for it!...........It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jesus was going on The Word ALone. Sustained and upheld by what was that again?........The Word of God--Holy Scripture.

BTW-the word universe means: one word. That is Power and all we need. All else is manufactured by the flesh if men's minds. Not good enough-not even close to good enough for us to live by. Enough for Jesus, enough for me.

Re:If sola scriptura is so important, why isn't this mentioned SOMEWHERE in the Bible?

EXACTLY! RayB can make his bogus list as long as he likes, but he still can't prove that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura or Private Interpretation. All he can do is to try to create a diversion by insulting Catholics and their beliefs in hopes that no one will notice how his own rule of faith contradicts itself.

Then there is this gem from Anonymous 7:13 P.M.

Who cares what Martin Luther said. It is what the Holy Scriptures say that matters.

Given the fact that it was Martin Luther who invented "Sola Scriptura" in the first place Anonymous should darn well care what Martin Luther said. This is a perfect example of the doctrinal anarchy Luther was referring to. Bibliolatry was one of the consequences of Luther's "reforms."

As a historian for German literature once sarcastically put it, "Luther substituted Bibliolatry for Ecclesiolatry."

The whole foundation of Catholicism is errant because the rock is Jesus, not Peter. Paul says so, and Jesus was in the desert with the Israelites. 1Cor 10:4. Scripture interprets Scripture.

The rock throughout the Bible is a reference to the Lord (YHVH).

Peter was a man, who made a lot of mistakes, was filled with the spirit after the resurrection and brought the gospel to the Jews, just like Paul brought the gospel to the nations and he was not a Pope either. James was head of the believers in Jerusalem and Peter was an apostle, no more, and no less.

The whole invention of the Catholic Church is based on replacement theology. The Catholic Church wanted to replace Israel as the new bride of Christ.

If your faith is not established on the true rock, it is faulty because you will follow men and not God.

Deuteronomy says " The Rock, his work is perfect for all his ways are just." Who is this speaking of? The rock is used over 600 times in Scripture and it is talking about the Lord. Peter did not replace the Lord, he was a humble servant. If your foundation is faulty, what you build on it will be faulty. Build your foundation on Jesus/YHVH and you will have a solid foundation. It is Jesus who will come back and destroy Satan's system, not Peter.

Case closed? Perhaps. But only for anti-Catholic "Sola Scriptura" Protestants here who are either unaware of its problems - or who are, but don't have any problem with a self-contradictory rule of faith that is unbiblical, unhistorical and unworkable - as long as they think they can get away with using "sola scriptura" to confound and bully Catholics.

At the following link ( www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/ ) Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie have not proven that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. They have merely presented their private interpretations.

When anti-Catholic "sola scriptura" Protestants here demand to know where in scripture do we find “this or that” Catholic doctrine, I will always demand to know from the questioner “where in scripture does it say that it must first be written in scripture before it is to be believed?”

Apparently, these same anti-Catholic Protestants have a double standard, because in spite of the number of times they vehemently claim "sola scriptura" as their rule, it is interesting to observe how many non-biblical sources they cite to make their case.

But even in this instance, Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie are mistaken when in their indirect allusion to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 they use the word "sufficient."

Second, the Bible is *sufficient*: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith. ( Geisler & MacKenzie )

Again, the Bible passage that they are alluding to without directly citing it - because it is likely they know they will be challenged - 2 Timothy 3:15-17 - doesn't say that the Bible is "sufficient." It says that the Bible is "profitable."

…From childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Even in the KJV translation of 2 Timothy 3:15-17 reads "profitable" not "sufficient." Moreover, the words "profitable" and "sufficient" are not the same as the word "only." No "sola" here.

The only way any of the accusations made against the official beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church - many of which are not true even from a historical perspective - might be valid, would be if it could be proven that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura and "private interpretation."

With regard to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 the very notion that the “bible” was the only authority for the Christian believer would be absolutely foreign to St. Paul who was a devout Pharisee. For instance, do we really think that St. Paul would have considered his own writings as “sacred scripture?” No, of course not. Look at verse 15; notice that St. Paul reminds Timothy that he has known the “sacred writings" which are able to instruct you for salvation” from his childhood.

This begs the question, was the New Testament written when Timothy was a child? Maybe some portions, like the Gospel of Mark for instance, but, certainly NOT any of St. Paul’s writings. So, clearly, St. Paul is not here referring to any of his own letters, which make up the majority of the New Testament. Furthermore, he’s not likely even referring to anything other than the Old Testament in this exhortation to the young Bishop.

Come to think of it, what about the oral tradition of the Old Testament and the teachings handed down to the Chosen People from Moses?

But I digress.

If St. Paul did believe this doctrine of "sola scriptura," then why did he say, “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? It seems rather strange that he would teach in one letter the “bible alone” is the only authority, then in another letter “traditions” passed on by “word of mouth” are equal to the written text. Why would St. Paul introduce such confusion to the believer who might read his letter IF, in fact, he did believe in “Sola Scriptura?” After all, as a book of the Sacred Scriptures, isn’t his letter divinely inspired?

The answer, of course, is, yes! His letter is divinely inspired, and it, in fact, does NOT teach the false notion of “Sola Scriptura” as many would like it to. St. Paul was a master at using the scriptures for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”, and yet it was not scripture that he taught was the “pillar and foundation of Truth”, but, rather, it was the Church!

1 Timothy 3:14–15 (RSVCE) 14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

It is God who has placed fallible men over us. It is God who uses the weak to confound the wise. It is God who, took upon flesh, dwelt among men, called his twelve to himself, ordained them Priests and Bishops in the upper room, breathed upon them the Holy Spirit to send them to do what He was sent by the Father to do. It was that God-Man who said in Matthew 18:17, “…and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

During the Reformation, "sola scriptura" and "private interpretation" were two of the tools invented by Martin Luther to make it easier for uneducated Catholics to reject long-established and practiced doctrines that were inconvenient to the NEW theology of the revolters. But later, in a letter to his fellow "revolter" Zwingli, Luther actually had the effrontery to whine about the "doctrinal anarchy" which was a direct result of his own unbiblical inventions. He and his confreres may have gotten rid of one Pope. But over time, he created about 22,000+ other little "popes" each claiming that their private interpretations of Holy Writ were "Holy Spirit-approved."

So yes indeed "case closed" - but only for those whose minds are closed to the truth, but certainly not in favor of "sola scriptura."

Luther... created about 22,000+ other little "popes" each claiming that their private interpretations of Holy Writ were "Holy Spirit-approved."

The basis of this wildly inaccurate claim that there are more than 22,000 protestant denominations is presumably the World Christian Encyclopedia compiled by David Barrett in 1982. Its second edition (Oxford Univ Press, 2001) refers to 33000+ total Christian denominations, but it defines the word ‘denomination’ as an organised Christian group within a specific country. That is an eccentric use of the word, for denominations run across national borders; by this definition the Roman Catholic church would count as about 300 churches, not one church. As there are several hundred countries (and as smaller denominations are not represented in all of them) we should divide the figure of 25,000 by about 100. This gives a few hundred genuine denominations, consistent with the list recorded in Wikipedia:

RayB goes awfully quiet when presented with facts about Catholicism. On an earlier thread he was trying to present disinformation that the Vatican was pro-Nazi but then went mute when asked about the 108 Polish martyrs.

Beware of disinformation like that presented by RayB. As both Dorothy and Constance have pointed out ad naseum, the New Age is deeply anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic. Look for hidden agendas when you see either trait. What better way to distract from people learning about the New Age movement than "blame the Jews" or "blame Rome/the Jesuits"?

P.S. I am not Catholic by the way, just someone who is tired of the bully boy tactics used by Catholic-baiters here.

The so-called New Age movement is a narrative, theater, a distraction created by yet another Jesuit. There is no New Age. It's just another attempt at Babylon, or a fourth Reich, a global roman empire. But don't tell Constance, she is either working to distract or too afraid. Either way it's Nazi, Zionist, Theosophical, Illuminating, Lucifarian, Roman, Babylonian, Egyptian, call it what ever, blame Crowley if you want too. It's Lucifer and his followers fish hats, pedophiles, Mengele and his son (at the center of the Franklin Case) and Satinism, child abuse for trauma based mind-control, thanks to the art of war (Jesuit written). It's Nebukenezer and Jezebel, it's witchcraft, it's kaballah, it's Francis Bacon and his "all the world's a stage", it's Disney, home of Mason entertainment, it's false flags. It's global and there is no more united states. It's the year of mercy, what is the opposite of mercy? That's next.

I had my gold fillings removed and my attendant actually agreed with me and completed my sentence , Hitler pick people's teeth out with a spoon at the camps, even she knows they are coming, American's know. How did we get here? Never again?

"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it." Joseph Mengele. NO Joe, they know what you are doing and it's so repulsive that normal people with empathy can't handle the emotions and they shut down.

The only way to the Father is via the Son and not traditions of the Roman Church. You are either with Jesus or you are not. It is that simple.

I am not against Catholics, but I am against any church or person who tries to put their tradition OVER the word of God.

I will just quote Jesus speaking to the Jewish religious leaders of his day:

"Neglecting the commandments of God, you hold to the traditions of men".

This is not new. From time in memoriam men have found ways to adapt the way they worship God. When the temple was destroyed Jews could not longer bring animal sacrifice, and their practice changed dramatically.

It's not only Catholicism that does this, but it was one of the first churches to institutionalize this practice of putting man's teachings before God's. God is not a man that he should lie. If he says something in his word, he actually means it. You cannot build your religion on a foundation that is a man, you have to build it on Jesus/God, because he is the only one who was infallible. Just because an organization has a lot of money, and monuments and fancy clothes does not mean that they have the answers.

You are very attached to the Catholic Church so am not trying to dissuade you from your attachment. I'm just saying what the Bible says and it cautions us against adding or taking away. The last book of the Bible says this, and it says this in the Torah too. Adding and taking away, sounds a lot like man's traditions to me. When tradition supercedesthe Bible we have a problem. It's when we make our traditions a matter of religion that we are adding to the Bible.

There are a number of clear warnings, that God's word is where life comes from and man's traditions are vain.

Isaiah warned against learning traditions by rote and removing one's heart. We can do this in any denomination, so it's not only Catholicism. It's religion in general.

Jesus said why do we transgress the commandments of God for the sake of tradition, quoting Isaiah he called them hypocrites. That's pretty strong warning. He said that they were teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.

Not sure how much clearer it can get. I wouldn't want to be guilty of contradicting Jesus, but what do I know?

note to everyone here, Constance reads all the posts and it interferes with her work on the unfinished articles. everything that can be said (except for what I will post) has been said, so scale it back, eh?

Constance, my apologies for these posts, hopefully they will silence RayB. There is a much longer version which will be at one of my blogs.

RayB's question where RC doctrines are in Scripture. your other list dating some doctrines is wrong. All or most have a history before that. Got it from some sources who know nothing of church history beyond the Reformation, right? And you also made reference to early church errors before Constantine, what would those be?The Body and Blood of Christ being real perhaps?

ST. IGNATIUS WAS TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN AND TAUGHT REAL PRESENCE. THAT SHOULD SETTLE IT.

ST. IRENAEUS TAUGHT THIS AND WAS TAUGHT BY A STUDENT OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ST. JUSTIN MARTYR TAUGHT THIS AND WAS TAUGHT BY AN AGED MAN OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE KNOWN AN APOSTLE OR TO HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY A STUDENT OF AN APOSTLE.

"how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?For example, please provide the "convincing" Scriptural proof for the following:"

THE OFFICE OF THE PRIEST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT -

presbyters elders word morphed into "priest"but by AD 130 I guess the usual term for the leader of the elders was "president of the assembly," presbytidos I think is the word. This is what St. Justin Martyr c. AD 150calls the one who makes the Eucharistic prayers after which the bread and wine becomethe Body and Blood of Christ. NOTICE THAT SOMEONE IS IN CHARGE OF THE MEETING, AND THATTHE BREAD AND WINE BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. This is from the Middle East,while St. Irenaeus says the same from Europe, so the teaching of the Church on this matteris uniform. More on this later. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Elders/all the verses relating to the elders, some specialized in one thing some another to judgeby the reference to those who labor in teaching. THE PRIEST IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BISHOPWHO, WHEN CHRISTIAN POPULATION WAS SMALL, RAN EACH CITY'S ONE CHURCH. AS TIME PASSEDCONGREGATIONS MULITPLIED AND THE BISHOP RAN ALL HIS CITY'S CHURCHES AND THE LOWER LEVELELDERS TOOK HIS PLACE IN THE OTHER CHURCHES. ELDER INCLUDES PRIEST ROLE, BISHOP, AND APOSTLE.THOUGH THE LATTER OFFICE CEASED WHEN THE LAST ONE DIED. YOU HAD TO BE A WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION AND HAVE KNOWN JESUS PERSONALLY TO QUALIFY. PAUL MET THE RISEN JESUS. A FEW OTHERS PROBABLY EXISTED, BUT ONCE THE LAST DIED NO MORE APOSTLES, NOTE THAT YOU NAR AND HOUSE CHURCH (NAR RECRUITMENT FIELD) BLATHERERS ABOUT "RELIGION" BEING BAD AND YOUR CULT BEING GOOD.

THAT ALL THINGS HOUILD BE DONE IN ORDER is a general principle which would result in hierarchy and someone leading the meetings.

THE DOCTRINE OF CELIBACY. -

ABSENT and highly questionable. Great push from north Africa inthis direction, resulting in a reluctant agreement of this per bishops, and Tertullian "fatherof Latin Christianity" was north African as was St. Augustine. the north Africans tended toradical extremes, north Africa spawed Donatism and other heresies. Tertullian himself fellin with the Montanists, probably due to their extreme asceticism, and denounced the Scythicand northwards of them women who rode horseback astride as immodest. Tertullian is not aChurch Father because he died in heresy, but nonetheless had remarkable influence. I Timothy 3:2-13

Last Supper and Paul's remarks about partaking without perceiving the Body of The Lord, I Cor. 11:29. THIS POINTS TO A SENTIENT REALITY IN THE BREAD AND WINE THAT CANBE OFFENDED, OR AT THE LEAST TO GOD OVERSEEING THIS AND GETTING OFFENDED AND SOMETIMES TAKING ACTION. AND THAT THE BREAD AND WINE ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, OR CONTAIN THEM, AND MUST BE VIEWED AS SUCH.

"sacrifice of the Mass" is a bad phrasing. "the unbloody sacrifice" is better, because bread and wine not the body and blood of Christ are sacrificed, and God returns these to the priest and laity (which means the people in Greek) as the Body and Blood of Christ. PAUL ALSO SAYS WE HAVE AN ALTAR THAT THOSE WHO SERVE AT THE JEWISH ALTAR CANNOT PARTAKE OF. so the idea of the unbloody sacrifice being done on an ALTAR is Apostolic. sacrifices are made on an altar, an altar implies offerings to God, and the believer also is altar giving sacrifices or offerings of praise and thanksgiving and prayers for others to God. But this latter is NOT the only meaning. "AN ALTAR," in that context in Hebrews, points to a physical ritual altar. Hebrews 13:10

MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION -

ABSENT and baseless, something that will have to be dumped if RC is to rejoin Orthodoxy. Unnecessary, since God needed only to block original sin transfer in the womb, or cleanse only her womb, or render her immaculate just before conception. If Jesus needed His mother to be without original sin in order to have a prelapsarian human nature, then she needed her mother to be immaculately conceived also, gets ridiculous when you think about it. Some early fathers refer to her as "all immaculate," but this was about her personal life. By God's grace she did not manifest the sin nature, but still had this. There is a crackpot theory out there, that a person's spirit is inherited traducian style from the father only, and original sin runs patrilineally, not passed through the mother. RC officially rejected traducianism in favor of special creation of each soul and spirit, but traducianism is the basis for the claim of Melchizedec being superior to Aaron and the levitical priesthood in Hebrews. Hebrews 7:9 and context, which in this case is the whole chapter and preceding chapter.

EO never did this, but influenced by RC due to jesuits training our priests in the past when we were lacking educational facilities, such notions crept in among us. This "creationism" of the soul is another thing RC should dump. The soul material, for lack of a better word, transmits as does the physical material, half a physical germ cell and with it half of soul material, which being fluid is more malleable and shapable for good or ill than the physical. The idea of special creation of each spirit, seems to draw on Origenism, while making it not happen before conception but at conception. There used to be disputes in the west as to when the child was ensouled or you could argue enspirited.

MARY'S ASSUMTION (BOTH BODY & SOUL) INTO HEAVEN. -

ABSENT, BUT TRUE OR FALSE COULD NOT BE IN SCRIPTURE BECAUSE SHE DIED AFTER SCRIPTURE WAS FINISHED.the belief existed back to the 400s or 500s AD when a church being built in her honor asked church leaders of the city where she died for a relic but there was none, because after her death Jesus Christ came and resurrected her and took her to heaven. AND THIS HAD BEEN KEPT A SECRET AMONG THEM, FROM THAT TIME, BECAUSE SHE HAD ORDERED THOSE PRESENT TO NOT TELL ANYONE OF THIS, LEST IT DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON TO HER. That makes it credible to me, because this is consistent with the little we know of her from Scripture. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTESTANT CONCERNS SO PROTESTANT READERS SHOULD TAKE NOTE. The focus her developed later in reaction to gnostics who denied Christ's full humanity and declared His physical body an illusion, because this was to emphasize the reality of Christ's INCARNATION. I think she would dislike some things now.

absent, but the Hebrew royal categorization practice was that the queen was not the wife of the king but the mother of the king.

PRAYERS BEING OFFERED TO MARY AND TO DEAD SAINTS. -

began as prayers to God in the presence of relicsand tombs of martyrs figuring one was closer to God when closer to His martyrs, and came to include requests to them to pray for us. A lot of Marian visions are highly dubious, and any visionarieswho had "locutions" should be ignored as hysterical or worse and that's probably most of them. This sort of thing is back of a lot of later RC doctrinal and practice development. There is not much teaching on the possibility of deception by demons or by the flesh given to the laity while Orthodoxy has this kind of warning published and taught by spiritual fathers to non monastics who visited foradvice and so forth. God being oniscient and Mary and the saints having a close relationship with Him, He can let them know that someone wants their prayers for them.

THE CUP BEING WITHHELD FROM THE LAITY. -

ABSENT AND WRONG ONLY DEVELOPED IN THE WEST NEVER THE EAST.

THE CHARGE OF MONEY FOR THE MASS. -

ABSENT and damn near simony. This would of course be regarding special masses for the dead or some purpose, assuming it is still done now. EO under financial pressureto support the Ecumenical Patriarch who was under financial pressure from the Turkish ruler developed a system of paying for everything, which remained to this day except among the Greeks who are usually better supported. at least in America. thus you pay in some jurisdictions to get your house blessed, moleben special prayer ceremonies in the church for the dead usually, and baptisms.

THE CONFESSIONAL. -

logical development over years adapting to circumstances. James 5:16

THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY AND THE UNFINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS BY CHRIST. -

purgatory is one of those things RC will have to admit they are wrong about and throw out before they can be admitted back into Orthodoxy, the shared communion is rare, extreme circumstances, almost non existent. "reunion" of the RC with Orthodox can only be on the basis of submission again to the original church. THERE IS NO NOTION OF CHRIST'S WORK BEING UNFINISHED. THE CONCERN IS ABOUT UNCONFESSED ORNOT TRULY REPENTED OF/TURNED FROM SINS AND SECRET SINS.

PURGATORY IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PHENOMENON OF TOLLHOUSES, itself reworked to have questionable elements in it in a questionable vision or dream, but the fear that demons could like a tollhouse keeper lurk and rush on you and grab you, because of sins burdening you down, and prevent for a while your getting up to heaven, goes back to early prayers. It is a logical concept when one thinks of the issue of sins alienating you from God. If you haven't grossed out the angels they will defend you. Near death experiences have included such monsters grabbing at you or right in hell with a cry to Jesus or in one case a mental certainty that Christ walking by could rescue the person being enough to save the person, the man in white seen either Christ or an angel only looked at him at that thought and he was back in his body. Usually these situations are disrupted by rescusitationefforts. some were in hell and begged not to be let die, others were in heaven and wanted to stay there. the ones with horrific experiences when asked later often had suppressed them, and only remembered the initial peaceful feeling state during separation from the body.

THE VERSES CITED BY RC TO SUPPORT PURGATORY READ IN CONTEXT ARE MORE ABOUT THE LAST JUDGEMENT PAUL SAYS WE ALL WILL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, AND HE SAID THAT TO CHRISTIANS, 2Cor 15:10 that doesn't mean a foretaste of the situation won't exist among the dead, as Jesus showed regarding the rich man and Lazarus, the only parable that named a name. Protestants are too slipshod. a verse here, a verse there, and a fragmented picture is built.

THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. -

ABSENT and baseless as a logical development. EO did this a few times thanks to RC influence.

PRAYING THE ROSARY. -

absent, but a logical development of the idea of praying constantly. However the content can be argued with. We pray using a knotted cord, to keep count of prayers.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. -

Onisephorus 2 Timothy 1:16-18; 4:19 which uses the concept of asking for him to be shown mercy "on that day" i.e., day of judgement, that the maccabees used. Prayers for the dead were part of Jewish practice so would have naturally continued in the early Church. Paul twice refers to Onesiphorus' household without mentioning him as among them, then refers to him and prays that The Lord have mercy on him on that day because he had helped Paul a lot. Onesiphorus is always talked about past tense when at all so he is dead, and combined with that prayer for him shows he was dead. JESUS SAID WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, MATT. 19:26 and the context is the repentance and salvation and eternal life of those who in this life it is harder to get into the Kingdom of God than getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Logically the same could be applied to an equally difficult salvation situation. Jesus said He has the keys of Hades and Death, Rev. 1:18, hades of course is not torment hell, but INCLUDES it being the realm of the dead in general. IPeter 3:18-20; 4:6 someone argued mere announcement kerygma not invitation euangelion was used, but BOTH words are used.

COLLECTING AND VENERATING RELICS. -

Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life, and do you think recipients of those cloths blessed by having been worn by Peter would have tossed them away? Even his shadow was thought would cure if it fell on someone, and you could call someone's shadow a relic of the person. 2Kings 13:21, Acts 19:12, Acts 15:15 a shadow could be called a relic of someone, however ephemeral;

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. -

ABSENT the only infallibility was held to be the Scriptures, appealed to bythe Creed to support the doctrine of the REsurrection of Christ, and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils. NOT NECESSARILY THE CANONS THAT WERE PRESENTED SEPARATE AND AFTER THE DOGMATIC DECLARATIONS, AT LEAST ONCE ONE OF THESE WAS CHANGED BY A LATER COUNCIL.

SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT PETER WAS EVER IN ROME. -

absent but true or false would not be in Scripture this occurred after Acts ends with Paul still alive in Rome. By this logic, the Apostles evaporated at this point. Or, you could argue none of them died because their deaths are not recorded in the

Bible. Church historians in the next few centuries drew on written accounts now lost. Think nothing happened after Acts ended? Peter didn't get to Rome until after Paul though or Paul wouldn't have said he wanted to give them a blessing that they be established, the faith was brought there by converts who converted others, they had no bishop. Whether Peter was the first bishop or only appointed the first bishop is not clear, but by one account he appointed the bishop AS bishop just before he died, so when he died he was not himself bishop any more. PETER'S LETTERS ARE FROM "BABYLON" WHICH RESEARCHERS SAY WAS A TERM USED ABOUT ROME AMONG THE JEWS. Peter was Jewish. and by that time Babylon was a ruin. (yes it was destroyed, not by Cyrus the Great but later by others over time.)

PETER DID NOT FOUND THE ROMAN CONGREGATION. Romans 15:20 is cited by some that Paul didn't found them but Peter must have because Paul says he worked to preach where others hadn't so he wouldn't build on another man's foundation. BUT THE CONTEXT IS, his travels hither and yon, and verse 20 "FOR WHICH CAUSE ALSO I HAVE BEEN MUCH HINDERED FROM COMING TO YOU." So he had not stayed out of Rome because he wanted to avoid building on another man's foundation, but had been too busy not building on another man's foundation elsewhere to come to Rome, where he intended as follows, Romans 1:11 "FOR I LONG TO SEE YOU, THAT I MAY IMPART UNTO YOU SOME SPIRITUAL GIFT, TO THE END YE MAY BE ESTABLISHED;" SO NO APOSTLE WAS THERE OR HAD BEEN THERE, ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED ALREADY.

Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Roman congregation, they founded themselves! They believed on Jesus because of the words of believers who came to Rome. But they had no bishop or Apostolic Succession as yet, but were Christians because they believed in Jesus Christ as King and God Incarnate and His atoning death and His Resurrection. SOMEONE CLAIMED RC WAS FOUNDED BY SIMON MAGUS, MUST BE ANOTHER HISLOPPIAN. HISLOP IN HIS SLOPPY WAY, FALLING ALL OVER HIMSELF TO PROVE PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME, ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR WINDOW WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE BUT DISMISSED IT, AND SAID A SIMON PETER WAS IN ROME GUESS WHAT,THAT WAS PETER'S NAME! Simon magus was not the same person. Obviously.

to which can be added, MAINTENANCE OF SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS - what else are you going to makeof the Last Judgement scene? and Paul's statement that you are in Christ and Christ in you unless youare reprobate? the Greek word is some kind of muddle about something you don't or aren't speaking ofone could read it "unless you are unspeakable?" MATT. 7:21; MATT. 18:23-35; MATT. 22:11-13 the guestwithout the wedding garment of righteousness, someone who is an easy believer and feels free to sinand even ignore Christ or deny Him once they've been "saved" by the sinner's prayer I suppose?

MATT. 24: 45-51; MATT. 25:31-46

POSSIBLE BREAK OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST AND LOSS OF SALVATION. -

definitely present in warnings surrounding those once saved always saved perseverence verses out of context, in context they are saying you will not lose your salvation if you hang onto it and persevere in it and repent if you fall into sin and keep persevering against sin. REVIEW THE BIBLE VERSES IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION. also I Cor. 13:5; I JOHN 16, 17 ALSO SHOWS DEGREES OF SIN, "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IS SIN: AND THERE IS A SIN NOT UNTO DEATH." REV. CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE LETTERS TO CHURCHES WARNING OF JUDGEMENT OF VARYING DEGREES, SEE ALSO WARNING AGAINST TAKING THE MARK OF THE BEAST, AND WARNING AGAINST BEING BLOTTED OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE IF YOU ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

"Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)."

one verse out of context and ignoring origin pointed to. EXODUS 19:6 A nation of priests God called Israel, yet they had priests and non priests, but as a nation were priests before God to the rest of the world. All could offer to God THROUGH the priest, and all could offer praise and prayer.

Paul's instructions clearly make such a distinction, and the priesthood of all believers verse draws on the SAME idea presented in the Torah, yet distinctions and a separate priesthood over this nation of priests existed then. We are not lacking priesthood but rather a new priesthood that of Melchizedec is in play, with Jesus as permanent High Priest. if there is a high priest there are lesser priests. The laity are priests who give the offering of praise, worship, prayer, light candles in church and can burn incense at home, contribution to the church maintenance and support of the poor. Can do baptism if a priest is lacking.

Paul's instructions show the bishop and deacon especially are to be models. episkopos means OVERSEER that is a rank above the overseen, is it not?

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." Heb. 13:17

So you read his book or just the review? Are you acquainted with that list of practices shared by pagans and Israel, none of them condemned and some mandated by God?

"How anyone can be dedicated enough to his "work" to the point of writing a book and then turn around and write another book to debunk his first "work" is beyond me."

Apparently you identify more with "dedication" and following ones own heartthan dedication to truth. Woodrow was not dedicated to his heart, but to truth, and finding he had supported a lie, proceeded to correct the lie instead of clinging to this false love. However, he retained issues with RC on some points.

Everything known about ancient mesopotamian false religion shows it was very different from RC except few vague similarities. Maybe you shouldobjective archaeological sources. similarity is not identity. Hislop identifiesvarious false gods and heroes as one and the same despite wild differences, on the basis of one or two similarities.

As for Queen of Heaven, the queen in Israelite practice was not the king's wifebut his mother. Hence Mary being queen of heaven.

"Furthermore, it does not matter what Woodrow or anyone else for that matter thinks of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits."

Which are slipshod. The issue is not what someone THINKS about the book, but what sources Hislop uses actually say, which are not entirely what he says they say. Sounds like your attitude is "Hislop said it, I believe it that's that."

""The truth remains the truth even when no one believes it. A lie remains a lie even when everyone believes it."" This is true, and you should therefore double check what you believe lest you find you have acquired a few lies. Woodrow checked Hislop's sources and the Bible and found Hislop was wrong.

What Hislop dug up would also refute the Incarnation and virgin birth and The Trinity, Hislop wouldn't go this far, so he said the presence of things like this in paganism were a vague memory of truth known in the past. THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF EVERYTHING HISLOP COMPLAINS ABOUT

forgot to give the Scripture cites on the keys and binding and loosing

Grammatical problems with Peter being the rock instead of Jesus have been hashed over elsewhere. Paul says the church is founded on the Apostles as foundation stones, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone, so in declaring Peter a rock Jesus was declaring he would be A foundation stone, he being the first to recognize Jesus' divinity, and the rest did later so they also were foundation stones.

Binding and loosing is primarily about withholding or granting absolution of sin, since the keys to a place let you into the place or let you let someone else in.

Jesus granted this power to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles, and even undersome circumstances at least to a congregation. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:22, 23

remission of sins power is the binding and loosing thing. This is apparently nuanced and Jesus nowhere claims to have relinquished the keys, merely handed out copies so to speak. Rev. 3:7

Why should anyone accept Pope Ray B's interpretation of scripture over the Catholic Magisterium's, or Pope Hislop's for that matter? More specifically, where in scripture does it say that Pope Ray B's interpretation is authoritative?

There is no Pope Ray B, so stop bullying! You guys often come out with the accusation that people are 'Catholic bashing' when in fact it is you guys doing the bashing. You are rude, bullying, diversive, unwilling to engage directly in proper debate (preferring ad hominems, subversion, strawmen, ignoring points, etc).

I myself wrote respectfully and did not make anything personal. It was the 'ever-so-gentle' Susanna who then addressed me as, 'YOU ', and became personal in tone. I explained clearly what Sola Scriptura means (which you all know anyway but dare not face): Holy Scripture takes precedence over and is superior to all other writing. Everything must be in complete harmony with it and not go against the spirit of it.

Sola Scriptura does not mean one can never write anything else.

Yet Roman Catholicism (which is NOT Christian Catholicism but is pagan at its very core) goes against Sola Scriptura as do its adherents. Many of whom (especially here) are willing to deceive and lie and subvert just as the Muslims do, as an honest reading of the all that has been written on this thread will show.

Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity.

Some 'Protestants ' here may be Anti-Roman Catholic regards the people. Most Christians posting here against Roman Catholicism are not against Roman Catholics but love them as fellow human beings and don't want them lost in such a dreadful and sacrilegious beast system.

I am a former Roman Catholic. I am now a true Catholic, that is, a born again Christian. I protest against anything that stands against Christianity yet recognise we fight against spiritual wickedness in high places and not against flesh and blood, yet we must expose, reprove, preach and correct.

Can any Roman Catholic tell me, when your pope utters something to do with faith and morals at the time he kisses the Koran, would you say he is doing so infallibily?

God bless you Greatly Ray B. You are suffering persecution because you are speaking the truth! Be bold and fight on, putting on the full armour of God!

RayB is not suffering persecution. RayB is being engaged directly addressing his points, and a lot more at http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-defense-of-such-roman-catholic.html including refutation of the nonsense that Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist was only vaguely held until a debate erupted (BOTH sides believed it just differed on its nature).

The sarcastic remarks given him recently are a direct result of his nonsense and appropriate to them. Frankly, I suspect that his Bible is Hislop and if Hislop had decided to dump any core Christian doctrine RayB would also. probably join the JWs.

RayB on the other hand has flung some very hostile remarks at Susanna, check the last comments thread.

you are however close right on the pope's statements. Whether they qualify as made "ex cathedra" or off the cuff and doesn't count is another matter. The statement is close to heresy. It might be classified as ignorantly equating all monotheism that gives a nod to the God of Abraham. JP2 kissing the Koran however is much worse, has pope Francis done this yet? to appeal to an alleged allegiance to the God of Abraham to get a hearing is one thing, to kiss a book that is known to contain blasphemies is another.

Thanks 1:22 AM.Very plain for anyone who is humble enough to simply take God at His word about His own word. He is the beginning and end of this subject, and all of the middle too, in those 66 God-breathed books of the Bible. Jesus said so in exalting God's Word above all things, as He did in Matthew 4:4 as was pointed out earlier. Religious types exalt their teachings instead (at the expense of Holy writ), but the Psalmist declared in 138:2...for Thou hast magnified Thy word above all Thy name so those guilty of what God charges them with in Matthew 7:15-23 have not heeded God's will, but self-righteously gone about their own will (with His name on it, no less..). Jesus condemns this. Read it yourselves....."Religious middle men" have a problem with that, taking issue with God Himself, no matter how much explaining they do.Scripture is always the final word on all matters. Scripture bears witness of Scripture, needing no other "authority" than it's own....always above and standing alone.

I take it you're talking about yourself there... even though you hadn't intended to!

Sacred Tradition certainly has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholic Tradition of Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, etc, etc.

"Were it not for Sacred Tradition, there would be no authentic Bible".

Absolutely right! That's why we reject the Apocrypha. That's why the entire 66 books of the Holy Bible had already been chosen before the end of the 200's.

Sadly, Roman Catholicism lies in claiming it compiled the Holy Scriptures. It kept the Scriptures FROM the ordinary people. Scriptures which had been written in Koine (common) Greek because it was the lingua franca (the very purpose being that as many as could read, could read it and read it to those who couldn't), so it would be available to everyone! Yet the Roman Catholic institution deliberately kept the Scriptures in Latin (which few knew) and away from the common people. Its 'authorities' murdered millions of Christians throughout the Dark Ages and beyond even just for possessing a Holy Bible. In fact, Thomas Moore, the unrepentant vicious murderer and Bible burner (of Tyndale's translation, etc) is still called 'Saint' by that dreadful institute of Rome!

The Holy Spirit guided true born again Christians to preserve the fullness in letter and spirit of Holy Scriptures. That is the Sacred Tradition once delivered unto the saints, and has NOTHING owed to Rome!

It is telling, in that New Age supporter and Pharisee Cumby, loves cultist Susanna, and New Age Martian Princess Christine. At the same time treating those who trust in Christ alone with harsh words, and contempt! She never corrects Catholics hardcore bashing against Followers of Jesus/Yahshua, but speaks out strongly against the smallest infraction by those who speak out on issues concerning Catholicism.

Constance's blog has fallen into darkness by her negligence in policing her blog in an impartial manner. Now it has a net negative impact as a ministry to offer true light to those influenced by NA. It is for the most part a dead work, and a waste of time. But it is a good place to hang out if your into hero worship. Bravo Constance! Bravo Susanna! Bravo Marko!

It is telling, in that New Age supporter and Pharisee Cumby, loves cultist Susanna, and New Age Martian Princess Christine. At the same time treating those who trust in Christ alone with harsh words, and contempt! She never corrects Catholics hardcore bashing against Followers of Jesus/Yahshua, but speaks out strongly against the smallest infraction by those who speak out on issues concerning Catholicism.

There is an old aphorism to the effect that if you want to find out what someone is really like, listen to what he accuses other people of doing.

The use of the name "Jesus/Yahshua" by Anonymous 3:08PM strongly suggests that he may have ties to the "Sacred Name Movement" which is itself regarded as a CULT-like organization - even by mainstream Protestants!

SACRED NAME MOVEMENThttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Movement_________________________________________________________

CULT OF THE SACRED NAMEhttps://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/the-cult-of-the-sacred-name/_________________________________________________________

One of the more bizarre sacred name concepts is that the name "Jesus" is actually referring to the god, Zeus. Ergo, their substitution of the name "Yahshua" for Jesus.

When we examine the M.O. of the sacred name cult we can plainly see a deliberate attempt to "deceive the very elect." They always start by saying “Jesus/Yahshua” or "Yahshua/Jesus" with a view to tying the names together in a potential initiate's mind through repetition such as that usually reserved for mind control.

Once the initiate has been fully conditioned to call Jesus “Yahshua” they will then tell them the name Jesus actually means Zeus, offering up some doubletalk as proof. This is so you stop using Jesus' name completely and switch to “Yahshua” exclusively. Once the initiate has allowed them to substitute the name “Yahshua” for Jesus, he has become ripe for deep deception.

While most ordinary Protestants are content to "agree to disagree" with Roman Catholics and Orthodox about Sola Scriptura, it seems a bit curious that "Sacred Namers" would be so maniacally obsessive about it until one understands that they have written a "Bible" of their own!!!

SACRED NAME BIBLE

Sacred Name Bibles are editions of the Bible that "consistently use Hebraic forms of God's name in both the Old and New Testaments". The term is not generally used for mainstream Bible editions, such as the Jerusalem Bible, which employ the name Yahweh only in the English text of the Old Testament, where traditional English versions have LORD.

Most sacred name versions use the name "Yeshua", a Semitic form of the name Jesus.

None of these Sacred Name Bibles are published by well-established publishers. Instead, most are published by the same group that produced the translation. Some are available for download on the Web. Very few of these Bibles have been noted or reviewed by scholars outside of the Sacred Name Movement.........

An additional variant Yahshuah (Hebrew: יהשוה) is found in Christian Kabbalah or occult speculations. Like Yahshua this variant is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Another variant Yeshu occurs in polemical rabbinical texts, connected with Jesus in the Talmud and is the modern Israeli secular spelling of Jesus. The spelling is not applied to other Yeshuas and Yehoshuasread more..............

Christian Kabbalah is one of the modern origins of the Perennial Philosophy I have previously mentioned in the context of the "right wing" of the New Age Movement. It is embraced by the pagan/gnostic "Traditionalist School."

CHRISTIAN KABBALAH

Christian Cabala "reinterpreted Kabbalistic doctrine from a distinctly Christian perspective, linking Jesus Christ, His atonement, and His resurrection to the Ten Sefirot", linking the upper three Sephirot to the hypostases of the Trinity and the last seven "to the lower or earthly world", or "would make Kether the Creator (or the Spirit), Hokhmah the Father, and Binah—the supernal mother—Mary", which "places Mary on a divine level with God, something the orthodox churches have always refused to do". Christian Cabalists sought to transform Kabbalah into "a dogmatic weapon to turn back against the Jews to compel their conversion—starting with Ramon Llull", whom Harvey J. Hames called "the first Christian to acknowledge and appreciate kabbalah as a tool of conversion", though Llull was not a Kabbalist himself nor versed in Kabbalah. Later Christian Cabala is mostly based on Pico della Mirandola, Johann Reuchlin and Paolo Riccio.

After the 18th century, Kabbalah became blended with European occultism, some of which had a religious basis; but the main thrust of Christian Kabbalah was by then dead. A few attempts have been made to revive it in recent decades, particularly in relation to the Neoplatonism of the first two chapters of the Gospel of John, but it has not entered into mainstream Christianity......

anon 12:47 no one has done any hard core bashing of protestants, just proven youand your sources wrong on many points from the Scriptures. This thread has been fairly polite to Susanna, the last one was a nasty to her at times. Catholics, Roman and original, have suffered and died for Jesus Christ many times over the past 2,000 years and some are doing so now in the Middle East. Also protestants were as good at massacring RC as vice versa in the Reformation wars, and England, as one of my posts last thread shows.

Scripture is always the final word on all matters. Scripture bears witness of Scripture, needing no other "authority" than it's own....always above and standing alone.

Whose interpretation of scripture? Protestants all point to the Bible as the sole authority yet they disagree with each other over important points of doctrine. They cannot all be correct, unless you throw out the law of non-contradiction and therefore black is white, up is down, and left is right. But to do that sounds a lot like New Age confusion, not Christianity.

So who in the Protestant world speaks authoritatively in matters of doctrine? Before you answer that, Susie down the street is also a Bible-believer and she likes Bill Johnson, but Jane her neighbour, another Bible-believer, likes Rick Joyner. So which Protestant is correct? I mean no disrespect to Protestants in general (being one myself) or to in any way question their love for the Lord, but this issue about correct interpretation of scripture has not been addressed. Calling Susanna a cultist, in addition to making you look immature and mean-spirited, just makes the Protestant position look weak.

There is no private interpretation to matters of Scripture.The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things and should let the Bible speak and then simply believe it.But few (few!) from whatever you name it denomination, actually do that.There is obviously more than one person addressing this, anon @ 8:49 PM. I am not one who is arguing with Susanna or anyone else for that matter, only posting in the generic. We are to let the bible speak and the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the supernatural word of God understandable and gives faith to finite, you and me, to believe it.

The problem is that different believers, all claiming the movement of the Holy Spirit and all pointing to scripture, arrive at different conclusions about doctrine. There is no single, unified interpretation of scripture, even on fundamental matters. At the end of the day it's just Susie's opinion vs. Jane's opinion vs. Rick Warren's opinion, and so on. All private interpretation. The Catholic notion of the Magisterium is a compelling one in light of Jesus's express wishes in John 17. The idea that "Catholics aren't Christians" is being promoted here quite heavily, but not all Protestants share that view.

anon 9:16 all well and good and works for the major stuff, such as faith in Christ and proper doctrine about Him, which if not evident to Bible believers like Jehovah's Witnesses and other heretics earlier can be clarified by those who can point out relevant verses, context and tie it all together. The Romans were Christian though they had no Apostolic Succession yet when Paul wrote (see my post at 6:09 am).

But the track record of sometimes violent and murderous disagreement between protestants shows that it is easy to THINK the Holy Spirit is making " the supernatural word of God understandable and gives faith to finite, you and me, to believe it" when it is something else going on.

anon 9:26, the context of private interpretation was how prophecy comes. But these people you mention are all refutable easily by Holy Scripture if CONTEXT and HUGE BLOCKS OF IT AT ONCE are used, rather than out of context proof texts and walking in the imagination of one's heart like all those preachers mentioned recently do.

The Scripture IS sufficient, if you read it without chapter and verse which tends to create a separation effect that doesn't exist in the originals. these were locator tools to speed finding something without re reading an entire book.

http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/content/big-snow-job-bill-schnoebelenwhile this site has some information of value (and I think Schnoebelen has some holdover evil spirit influence from his occultist days, and since he apparently never stopped following feelings this leaves him vulnerable, hence his susceptibility to this stuff), it is itself a problem.

"the shadowy group known as the Illuminati was founded by a Jewish organizer named Adam Weishaupt, whose father was a Rabbi in Bavaria."

This is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt his father was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Weishaupt "Johann Georg Weishaupt (24 April 1716 – 20 September 1753) was a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt.

"Johann Georg Weishaupt, born in Brilon in the Prussian government district of Arnsberg in Westphalia.[1] He studied law in the University of Würzburg under Johann Adam von Ickstatt (1702–1776).... became a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt in 1746. Weishaupt also moved from Würzburg to the University of Ingolstadt.[3] Ickstatt had him appointed professor of imperial institutions and criminal law by decree of 14 October 1746.[1] ...Weishaupt died suddenly while on holiday on 20 September 1753 in Heiligenthal near Würzburg. ... Johann Adam von Ickstatt, also a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt and Adam's godfather, took over Adam Weishaupt's upbringing.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Adam_von_Ickstatt no indication he was Jewish but "he was a major proponent of the Enlightenment in Bavaria. He died in Waldsassen. He was a godfather to Adam Weishaupt." probably a bad influence of the gentile sort.

Weishaupt was NOT A JESUIT EITHER. The event that set him in motion, was that the chair he had his eye on was designated to always be had by a Jesuit, which he was not. Thwarted pride and ambition.

Agree with you. We have to let the Holy Spirit do this work. Not really my job to fix what others believe or don't believe. God will do the necessary work of revealing Himself to open hearts and minds of any of us who are surrendered to his authority.(@ 9:27 Pm should not do the Spirit's work either....)

The Holy Spirit told Peter to tell us to "gird up the loins of your mind" to live soberly in the OT God warned to not walk in the imagination of your heart, Peter warned that many wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, and Jesus said to love God with "all your mind"

so whenever the mind gets used to read Scripture and keep all of the relevant segments and tie them together to figure something out, or to defend a practice or doctrine, supposedly this is not letting The Holy Spirit work but usurping that?

If you think the apparent differences between OT and NT cites of OT are because the mind and reading and repeating correctly were no part of Apostolic use of Scripture you are wrong. The reason is that they used the Septuagint. Which is from an older rescension than the Masoretic, which the rabbis admitted was partly flawed when they got it.

I've been struggling with a few new health issues this week. Pray for me! I will be doing the radio program in another 20 minutes on www.TMERadio.com. Please join me. Much to talk about. I have been diligently researching and sometimes when I'm doing that, the writing suffers as I check for accuracy. I did obtain the book AN EVANGELICAL AGENDA: 1984 and Beyond (1979 Billy Graham Center) I HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT IT AND ITS CONTENTS -- AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because of the health and other issues this week, including necessary family time with grandchildren, I'm behind on comment reading. Hope to catch up soon. Happy New Year to all!

"and Jesus said to love God with "all your mind""Yes. That belongs to the 1st commandment.

So learn to do that and let the truth teach you. You. God's Holy Spirit can get through to others too, you know...and HE loves others like you and I cannot. You lack a great deal of love, as we repeatedly see demonstrated here. ..and the 2nd commandment is like unto it ;) ..The Bible teaches us that if you are actually learning from God your words will be few, instead of your mouth continually spilling out everything you may only think you know, and even if perhaps is true, but falling short, or in that multitude of words, bring in error as it says in Proverbs. What is more, the Bible is much more than any given set of facts because it is supernatural, (and we are not) so you will do well to get a grasp of that understanding. (Mary pondered all these things in her heart the Bible tells us, and you and I haven't been told anything half so awesome as she was)That's the "stuff" that makes someone an amateur providence.Don't go there, be humble.

I am not endorsing this site, but, I found some very interesting reading material on the New Age Movement, the coming One World Government & Religion, etc. Very well documented. This is just a small snippet of the vast amount of material that is available on this site (Link below):

The Neo-evangelical "CONSULTATION on the FUTURE"

Actually, it takes courage, not fear, to stand alone against such pressures to conform! The evangelical leaders who participated in that Consultation almost three decades ago showed no such boldness. The conference transcripts suggest that they valued "common ground" more than Biblical integrity.

These strategists included Leighton Ford (Vice President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Honorary Life Chairman of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization), Howard Hendricks (Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and Chairman of The Center for Christian Leadership), Dr. Gene A. Getz (pastor and author), Dr. Ralph Winter (founder of U.S. Center for World Mission) and many others.

These high profile pastors and presenters simply listened, dialogued and accepted Dr. Harman's disturbing views of occult experience and evolving oneness. Notice his promotion of mystical universalism:"...the ultimate goals of all societies that ever existed have come from the profound inner experiences ofsome group of people – religious leaders, prophets, mystics, poet-philosophers, or -- in some visionary cultures -- the majority of the adult population....

"Survey data indicate a significant cultural shift in the direction of more interest in spiritual and psychic matters.... The growing suspicion is that traditional religion and conventional science alike are both partial and flawed, and due to be superseded by a more unified view of reality."[6]

"Remarkably, Willis Harman was able to proclaim an alternative Luciferian future to evangelical leaders without any significant resistance," states Herescope, a respected discernment ministry. "This is because potential debate at the 1979 Consultation on 'Future Evangelical Concerns' was stifled." True to the dialectic process, "the format of the Consultation was orchestrated in such a manner that no contrary opinions were permitted."

"...the Consultation was broken down into six sessions of 'Addresses and Responses.'... The Preface [2, transcripts] states that 'contrary to the 1977 format, responders had been instructed to summarize and capsulize the assigned paper rather than debate the issues raised.' In other words, the presentations – some of them very controversial and heretical – were not to be challenged! Some responders merely 'urged cautions.'''[7]

According to Herescope, "one of the stated purposes of the Consultations was to integrate Harman's alternative eschatology with evangelical eschatology. Consultation presenter E.V. Newland, proposed creating an 'imaginative hybrid' of eschatology based on Harman's models."

He said, "Well, what then could be a transformed society? We are very impressed. We have links with people who are looking at these areas, sadly perhaps only from the secular groups or the academia. We are not yet in touch with theological colleges. We have established in that way contact with people who are thinking about a transformed society and they are exemplified by the Stanford Research Institute where there is a little group that's called the Social Science Research Unit and it's led by... Willis Harmon [sic].... [T]he California school feels that the next 30 years or hundred years is going to be a period in which we'll restore this balance of inward man and outward man."[2, pages 81-83]Herescope asks -- and concludes,

"Is it possible that this event marked the beginning of the public phase of the integration of Theosophy with Christianity? Indeed it seems so, when one reads the proposals made by Willis Harman to integrate the psychic into Christianity to create a new synthesized 'truth.'"[8]

"The seeds of Theosophic syncretism were planted when Willis Harman's address to evangelical leaders in 1979 was not challenged. It began to produce recognizable fruit by 1991 in the work by Leonard Sweet. And it has now come to full fruit in neo-evangelicalism today."[9]

This is the type of compromise, or rather, APOSTASY, that comes when a person denies the absolute authority of God's Word. Graham has always been a proponent of the un-Sriptural Ecumenical Movement, so his statement on this video (along with many others with a similar bent) should not come as a surprise. In the video below, Billy Graham appears as a guest on the heretic/New Age "minister" Robert Schuller's "Hour of Power" and clearly denies the gospel of Jesus Christ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrf60-zHl9A

PS: when confronted with this (and other of Graham's similar statements), his Association admitted that the position that Graham stated on Schuller's program is one that he has held since the beginning of his ministry. Some have proclaimed (including fellow Masons) that Graham is a 33 degree Mason ... if that is true ... then it explains his apparent belief in a form of Universalism. The real "god" of Masonry is Lucifer ... as stated by their own writings (Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall).

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” II Corinthians 11: 13-15

Paula White's Peace Button advertisement promotes NewAge sound and Light products of Michael Tyrrell a NewAge Light Workers The add is a piece at the beginning of her pod-casts. so if she changes her add, it will disappear.https://twitter.com/Paula_White/status/683349919093121024

Michael Tyrrell, NewAge practitioner says that his music was somehow based on King David musical science of the Bible with absolutely no evidence to this connection, except that we cannot disprove the same. Maybe the technology was channeled to him?https://wholetones.com

Christine is a blasphemous reprobate blind with pride and arrogance. She has no respect for her own mother, who no doubt bore her with much sufferance as has Constance (Christine's recurrent tantrums at this blog are clearly indicative of transference having taken place ((Christine, Constance is neither your mother nor your doctor)) ).

She is bursting with blasphemies and her home is an aviary of everything unclean.

I urge her to repent: turn from her false religious nonsense and embrace Biblical Christianity before it's too late!

We are strangers passing through here; we look to Heaven, not Rome, Mount Athos, the Earthly Jerusalem or any other fallen place but Heaven. We are in the World but no longer of it. Let those who want to look to Rome, Constantinople, London, Geneva Earthly Jerusalem or Worms do so. I myself am looking towards Heaven and the World to come.

"The woman saith unto him,Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:19-24

And ... Jesus prayed unto the Father: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17

Note: Jesus did NOT pray "thy word" + "traditions" but HIS WORD ALONE.

About Me

As an active Michigan lawyer, I practice my profession primarily in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties of Michigan, USA (248-253-0333). Sometimes I do work in my old "stomping grounds" of our State Capitol, Lansing, Michigan on administrative, state law related matters, as well. I've enjoyed active and stimulating careers in government, politics, law and as a published and translated author. In the past, I have worked for the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan State Senate, and the City of Highland Park, Michigan. I'm the author of the first major critical book about the New Age Movement, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism (1983); A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah (1986). Currently, I'm completing a volume about Javier Solana, the Barcelona Process, Israel and the European Union. Email me cumbey@gmail.com.